MR. B. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to recognize the students at Vanier Elementary school
for a pair of outstanding achievements.

Firstly, I'd like to recognize the artistic talents of Vince Burton. Vince
won the Cupids Museum Award of Excellence in 2016 for the Junior Division
for the museum's Design a Stamp Competition. Vince designed an 85-cent stamp
depicting volunteers serving food at a soup kitchen.

Next
I have to recognize the Vanier Elementary school Chess Club, who won the
gold medal at the Provincial Chess Tournament, which was recently held at
Mary Queen of Peace. The winning team members were Jonathan Adamson, Jacob
McGrath, Joshua Keyte, Jacob Brockerville, Ethan Pittman, Harrison Hefferton
and Tanish Bhatt. These impressive accomplishments are a credit to the
teaching excellence at Vanier Elementary.

I
ask all Members in this hon. House to join me in celebrating the recent
accomplishments of Vince Burton and the Vanier Elementary Chess team.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Cape St.
Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate The Concert Crowd, a group from
Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. They started in 1968. March 5 marked their
48th year of performing.

This
group consists of 40 amateur actors, singers, dancers and musicians with
most of them hailing from the local community. They have welcomed a few
members from outside.

The
Concert Crowd had a humble beginning in a school, using desktops for their
stage. They have now expanded to the Arts and Culture Centre to sold-out
shows. The Concert Crowd performs at conventions, festivals, the RNC
seniors' party and more.

The
Concert Crowd donates its proceeds to charities like the Red Cross, Canadian
Cancer Society, Kidney Foundation, Rainbow Riders, Community Food Sharing
Association, VOCM Cares Foundation, Day Break Lunch Association, CNIB,
medical emergency support, the town museum, St. Francis of Assisi Parish
Cemetery and many more. To date this group has donated $150,000.

I
ask all Members to join with me in congratulating this dedicated group of
individuals for the time and effort they put in to helping others.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the
District of Fogo Island  Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House to recognize the Badger's Quay Lions Club, which celebrated
its 60th anniversary on April 15.

Founded in 1956 by a sponsorship from the Gambo Lions Club, the Badger's
Quay chapter has grown into a major part of the community. Over its 60 years
of existence, the club has raised more than a million dollars; funds have
gone to support local causes and charitable acts around the world.

Other worthy initiatives the Badger's Quay Lions Club participates in
include an eyeglass recycling program that brings the gift of sight to
residents in impoverished countries, and training service dogs for their
friends and neighbours with medical needs.

Another project that's worthy of recognition is their commitment to the
Local Polar Bears. The Lions Club donates their building to the Special
Olympians on Thursday nights, promoting empowerment through participation in
sport.

Under current president Tracy Stagg, the Lions Club's 21 members continue to
demonstrate a commitment to community volunteerism that has endured for the
club's 60 years of existence.

I
ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the Badger's
Quay Lions Club for this significant role.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize two individuals
who live in my district, Ron and Ethel MacNeil. Ron and Ethel currently
reside in Masonic Park and are greatly involved in the community and the
seniors' programs at Masonic Park.

Mr.
Speaker, I would like to honour both of them on being outstanding artists
and pursuing their talents. Ethel didn't realize that she had the ability to
paint until her late 60s. Since then, she continues to paint and has a
passion for it. In fact, one of her prints hangs in my house proudly. Ron,
on the other hand, has always been aware of his talent. Ron started knitting
at a very young age and hasn't stopped since.

Recently, one of Ron's cross-stitch pieces of the Battery was noticed and is
now hanging in Government House here in St. John's. I encourage anyone who
is visiting Government House to take a look.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Ron
and Ethel MacNeil on their accomplishments to date, and wish them all the
best in continuing to do what they love.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to acknowledge the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's community awards
ceremonies held this past Monday. I had the privilege of bringing greetings
and presenting awards. The gala was a very classy event, with long-time
Portugal Cove-St. Philip's resident VOCM personality Fred Hutton serving as
master of ceremonies.

Awards were presented in the categories of Youth, Volunteer, Athletics and
Business. We were entertained by former Portugal Cove-St. Philip's resident,
International Long-Distance Runner and Coach Ray Will, as guest speaker. All
categories had recipients who excelled locally, provincially, nationally and
internationally.

The
gala ended with a passionate and entertaining reception acceptance speech by
the Business of the Year recipient, Ron Sullivan of Country Convenience.
Ron, an 80-year-old resident recovering from a stroke, had us all in
stitches and tears about the pride he has as a business owner in Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's.

I
ask all Members to join me in congratulating all recipients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. George's  Humber.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, recently a
Start-up Weekend, which involved entrepreneurs pitching their business ideas
to potential investors and mentors, was held at Grenfell Campus of Memorial
University. This event was hosted by the Grenfell Office of Engagement's
Navigate Entrepreneurship Centre, in partnership with Start-up Newfoundland
and Labrador.

Start-up Newfoundland and Labrador was built on the belief that
entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs is the best formula for start-up
success. With this in mind, Start-up Weeks are an effort to give value to
the community by bringing together existing start-ups and those who want to
create one.

Through working with the Grenfell Office of Engagement and other groups in
the community, Start-up Newfoundland and Labrador is working to provide a
strong network of support and help people to begin the journey from idea to
company. At the event in Corner Brook, 14 pitches were made and seven were
selected for further work throughout the event.

I
want to congratulate the entrepreneurs who came forward to participate in
the weekend and wish them well in their ventures. I also recognize the work
of the organizations and volunteers who made this weekend such a success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER: Today for Honour 100 we
have the Member for Fogo Island  Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG: I will now read into the
record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First
World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval
Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a
moment of silence.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the
commemoration of an historic event, the Battle of the Atlantic.

Each year, on the first Sunday in May, we remember
those who were lost in this Battle during World War II.

Mr. Speaker, the Battle of the Atlantic was bravely
fought by the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the
Merchant Navy, as they protected the shipping lanes on the North Atlantic
Ocean.

Newfoundland and Labrador played a significant role in
this battle. St. John's was vital to the supply and maintenance of the
trans-Atlantic escorts that facilitated the critical convoys feeding the
Allied war effort in Europe.

Unfortunately, the Royal Canadian Navy had
approximately 2,000 fatalities and lost 24 warships. The Royal Canadian Air
Force lost over 900
aircrews and the Merchant Navy had over 1,700 fatalities and lost more than
70 ships.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in honouring all the men and women of
our armed forces both past and present for their tremendous contributions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Premier for an advance copy of his
statement today. The Battle of the Atlantic is known to many historians as
the longest, continuous, military campaign of the Second World War lasting
from September 1939 until defeat of Germany in 1945. During those six years,
German U-boats and warships, Italian submarines battled against allied
forces who were trying to bring military supplies and equipment across the
Atlantic to the European front.

Mr.
Speaker, each May we know we commemorate this as a significant event for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we also join with the government in
recognizing the contribution of many Newfoundlanders, all those who served
in the war, those who lost their lives, were injured and especially served
in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I,
too, thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I think it is
important to remember the brave men and women who risked their lives
ensuring the vital Atlantic supply route stayed open. All experienced long
days and harrowing nights at sea dreading German submarines, such as the one
that sank ships in broad daylight in the Bell Island tickle. Theirs was a
generation who faced adversity and overcame it, certainly an inspiration for
us today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
rise today to recognize May 2 to 8 as Mental Health Week. On Thursday past,
I joined members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Canadian
Mental Health Association to officially proclaim this week.

All
week long, Confederation Building will be lit green to raise awareness and
build support for mental health.

This
year's theme, GET LOUD, encourages people to stand up, speak out and join
the conversation to help end the discrimination and stigma that exists
around mental health. This week is an opportunity to take action for those
who struggle. For someone at work; for someone at school; a family member;
or, for ourselves.

I
want to highlight Bridge the gAPP
 a free online mental health app accessible from a computer, tablet or
phone that connects youth and adults with guidance and support for mental
health. The app is available for free download on the Apple App Store or
through Google Play or at bridgethegapp.ca.
Bridge the gAPP also connects
individuals to the BreathingRoom  an online self-management program that
assists people in managing stress, depression and anxiety. I encourage
everyone to try these tools for themselves.

On
behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I commend the many
groups and individuals throughout our province who continue to advocate for
mental health throughout the year.

We
are pleased to be part of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions and are eager to move towards the development of recommendations
that will be brought forward in this House on how to improve overall
programs and services in Newfoundland and Labrador. We aim to have this
completed by the end of June.

I
encourage all residents to raise their voices and GET LOUD for mental
health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister as well for a copy of his statement today. Mr. Speaker,
Members on this side of the House, we've always held mental health as a
priority for us. It's very unfortunate right now for the people of the
province, especially those who struggle with mental health, that while our
current government promised everything back in November, they brought down a
budget that provides nothing for people who need it most.

Also, we know that the budget is going to create higher levels of anxiety
and stress in our population than we have seen before. So more than ever
before, we know that people are going to need support and assistance.

We
recognize Mental Health Week and hope to see the people of the province GET
LOUD for mental health and have faith that things will get better in the
future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. GET LOUD  the
people have been very loud; government isn't listening. Of course we support
mental health initiatives, but we need more than apps and slogans from this
government. There is important work to be done and this government has cut
deeper into an already inadequate mental health system.

Two
million in cuts to mental health and addiction services including closing
the Rowan Centre; 10-bed unit at the Waterford Hospital gone; wait-lists for
psychologists up to 18 months  the people are getting louder, but will
government listen?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

The
hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community
Living on 60 years of working with and on behalf of persons with
intellectual disabilities and their families to promote inclusion and
support a person's right to full citizenship within society.

The
provincial government was happy to support this association's 60th
anniversary conference and I was pleased to have the opportunity to address
participants on Friday along with my colleagues the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety and Education and Early Childhood Development.

Budget 2016 investments support inclusion through such things as inclusion
resources and training, improving accessibility, helping individuals and the
taxi industry acquire or adapt vehicles for accessibility, support
recreation and sport development initiatives for person with disabilities,
as well as educational and employment supports.

As
minister, I will continue working with advocacy groups and community
stakeholders to promote a more inclusive province and review existing
legislation and regulations with the goal of enacting a new inclusion-based
Disabilities Act.

With
50 per cent of our population impacted by disability, personally or through
a family member, we must continue to work with organizations such as this
one to advance inclusion throughout our province.

Please join me in congratulating the Newfoundland and Labrador Association
for Community Living on 60 years of successes and wishing them many, many
more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement today. We, too,
want to congratulate the Association for Community Living on 60 years of
service that they've provided to the people of the province.

The
mission of the Association for Community Living is to work with and on
behalf of individuals with an intellectual disability and their families.
For 60 years, they have not only delivered results to the community, but
they have enriched the lives of so many people in our province. They are to
be celebrated and commended.

I
know the minister is a former executive director. I congratulate her for her
time with the association as well.

Mr.
Speaker, we look forward to the new disabilities act that the minister
referenced; however, when talking about this budget, there are no new
investments in this budget to support inclusion or the advancement of the
association's work. I have no doubt in the strength and vitality of the
group.

I
offer my sincere congratulations to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association for Community Living on their 60 years of service to this
province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to
the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living on their
absolutely essential work.

The
minister talks about investments, but Budget 2016 made panic cuts, making
the work of disability and inclusion organizations more difficult.
Government cut home support hours and put a two-hour cap on home making
hours, a program that helps people live independently. Government also
reduced capacity and inclusion funding by $150,000, money these groups need
for community development and ensuring inclusion across the board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: Bravo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

The
Minister of Service NL.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to recognize May 1 to 7 as North American Occupational
Safety and Health Week, also called NAOSH Week.

NAOSH Week highlights the importance of controlling workplace hazards and
reminds employers and workers of their shared responsibility to promote a
strong safety culture.

Today, I participated in a flag raising organized by the Canadian Society of
Safety Engineers to mark this occasion. I want to recognize Donald Ross,
vice-president of Atlantic Canada, Canadian Society of Safety Engineers,
who's in the gallery who flew down from Halifax for this event; and also
Barry Fitzgerald, who is also chair of the Newfoundland chapter for
organizing the event today.

I
was joined by the officials from WorkplaceNL, and representatives from
safety groups and the employer and labour sectors.

I
want to thank each of them for their participation, and for the important
role they play in promoting safe workplaces.

Mr.
Speaker, the provincial government's role is regulatory, and I want to note
that our Occupational Health and Safety Branch is very active.

In
2015, there were almost 5,000 inspections conducted in the province,
resulting in almost 13,000 directives being issued, 725 of which were
stop-work orders.

Our
government will continue to fulfill its role, in partnership with employers
and the workers, to promote a stronger safety culture in the province.

I
will conclude by thanking the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers for
making NAOSH Week a priority every year.

May
we always remember to promote safety in both our professional and personal
lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.

I
want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We, as the
Official Opposition, do recognize May 1 to May 7 as Occupational Safety and
Health Week. I, too, want to thank the organizers of this event today for
the great job that they did. It was so nice to be there with so many people
from the industry and people that are in the workplace that realize that
over the last number of years we've come a long way.

Today, in some of the statements that were made, people were looking at
statistics. If you look at the statistics, Newfoundland and Labrador is
heading in the right direction. Any industry or any industry in Newfoundland
and Labrador that there is an injury, we want to eliminate it as best we
can. But there are little things that we can do to make sure our workplace
is safe. Those little things are to make sure that everybody is educated and
everybody understands that workplace safety is so important to our families
that everyone goes home 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:  safe and sound.

Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to congratulate 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
Member's time for speaking has expired.

The
hon. the Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I,
too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Last year,
more than 3,500 workers lost time from injuries and work-related illnesses
and 24 lost their lives. I commend the OHS officers in the province who do a
great job uncovering violations and working with employers to make
workplaces safe.

I
note, though, it is time for us to follow the practice in other provinces
and post online the names of employers who receive stop-work orders, just
like we do restaurant violations to protect workers and consumers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it's another day and it's another day of Liberal appalling decisions.
At a time when the Premier has stated that every dollar counts and people of
the province have been dealt a devastating blow with this Liberal budget,
this weekend we learned  from the media, not from government  that the
Liberals have retained outside legal counsel for labour negotiations.

I
ask the Premier to clarify why outside legal counsel has been hired. What
message does this send to our public servants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Our
provincial government is committed to ensuring a sustainable public service
and having a fair and effective bargaining process. The engagement of the
firm that will support our collective bargaining efforts, which are led by
the very talented officials in the Human Resource Secretariat and supported
by the Department of Justice, is being supplemented. The last collective
bargaining period, there were 14 individuals who were working on collective
bargaining. This time, there are eight individuals inside core government
working on collective bargaining.

For
the Member opposite, I would remind him during the pension negotiations last
year, both union and government engaged law firms, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As
the minister mentioned, she has her own division of collective bargaining.
There are 85 or 90 or more lawyers in the Department of Justice. They've
decided to use hard-earned money, levy money, no doubt, that they've
collected from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to go outside.

I
ask the Premier this: What's the rate you will pay McInnes Cooper? Is there
a cap on that billing? Premier, can you answer that, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, salaries
and benefits represent $3.8 billion of the program spending of the
provincial government. In order to make sure that the interests of the
people of the province are well represented, it is important we make sure we
have the resources.

As I
mentioned in the earlier answer, in prior collective bargaining, there were
14 individuals that were available throughout core government to be able to
be used for the bargaining. This time, we have eight very talented
individuals who will be supporting the bargaining. We will be supplementing
that with outside help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT: Members opposite
would be very familiar with the use of law firms as additional support,
particularly when government, I believe, last time used two law firms during
the negotiations on pensions. The unions also used a law firm, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the question
was very simple. The question was: What is the rate that McInnes Cooper will
be paid? I'm sure the minister must know that.

The
Premier won't answer, so I'll ask the minister now: What is the rate they're
being paid and, also, what is the cap on billing for McInnes Cooper? A very
simple question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

The
rate of the contract that we have in place with McInnes Cooper is $350 an
hour for the legal support. And for the Member opposite, I can let him know
as well that since McInnes Cooper has been engaged to support there's been
$14,000 worth of billing to March 28.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So
they've already got this process underway.

I'll
ask the Premier: With a full Department of Justice, a full department of
lawyers  I think I counted last night in the salaries about 87 solicitors
in the Department of Justice, 87 solicitors and who else knows how many in
the department. We have a full division of collective bargaining that are
responsible for bargaining and negotiating, and a full contingent of
communications professionals throughout government. Have you lost confidence
in these public servants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister ofFinance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have
extreme confidence in the public service and their desire to serve the best
interest of the people of the province.

Mr.
Speaker, I also know, and the Member opposite would know, that collective
bargaining is conducted in private and is confidential. All matters
surrounding collective bargaining, the process is confidential for both
sides. Just like we are not aware of what the unions are planning, it is up
to us to make sure that we prepare our plans to represent the peoples
interest.

When
we are at the table we will have discussions that are in the best interest
of the people of the province. Most importantly, we will get at those tables
and bargain in good faith, and we will not bargain in public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The
minister still hasn't advised if there's a cap on billing.

So I
ask her once again: Is there a cap on billings for McInnes Cooper, and, if
so, what is the amount?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the people of the province that this government, unlike the former
administration, is going to be extremely frugal and make sure that the
decisions we make are financially in the best interest of the province, not
leaving billions and billions of dollars of debt left for future
generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So
either the minister doesn't know or there is no cap. At this point in time
she knows her part well so we'll have to take it from her answer that there
is no cap.

I'll
ask the Minister of Justice, who leads the Department of Justice and Public
Safety and the dozens and dozens of lawyers that we have working in the
department: Have you lost confidence in the officials in your department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Justice.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I'm
happy to answer this question from the Member opposite who should be aware
that while we have a number of lawyers, they all have different areas of
expertise. Certainly, you wouldn't engage somebody that handles agricultural
law to lead our labour negotiations.

In
this case I think, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, we actually
have less individuals handling negotiations than the government that was in
place had previously and have engaged outside council as has been done by
many provinces, unions and the previous government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The
minister hasn't answered the question.

I'll
ask the Minister of Finance, who has a full division of collective
bargaining, now she says there's only eight there now  well, she can answer
why. It may be a decision she's made to only have eight that are involved
with collective bargaining and negotiating, but she has a full division of
collective bargaining and negotiating team within her department.

Do
you still have confidence in those officials, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the people of the province and this hon. House that I have tremendous
confidence in the officials that are working in the Department of the Human
Resource Secretariat that will also be supported by the legal team in the
Department of Justice.

Collective bargaining happens not every year and as a result, because there
is a peak in the amount of work that is undertaken, it is important that
that peak be managed and supported so that the officials who work for the
people of the province can be best supported to get the job done to make
sure, number one, we bargain in good faith; and, number two, that we
represent the interest of the people of the province, Mr. Speaker. I have
every confidence in our officials to do that, supplemented with the support
from outside council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: So, Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals have increased taxes and fees. They've introduced a fee just to
live right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're closing schools,
they're closing libraries, they're closing long-term care beds and the list
goes on; however, they have the money to hire external communication support
and, more importantly, a Liberal insider with ties back to the Tobin and
Grimes era and, most recently, ties to the election in the fall of 2015.

I
ask the Premier: How can you justify spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars? It could be millions, because we don't know at this point time. How
could you justify spending that amount of money unnecessarily and how does
this take the politics out of appointments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the
Member opposite might like to add zeros to things that he doesn't understand
but I did not say in this House that this consulting would cost millions. If
he wants to continue to mislead the province by making up fabrications, Mr.
Speaker, I will let him use his time to do that.

McInnes Cooper has been engaged to provide support for the department of the
Human Resource Secretariat and the Department of Justice. They have
suggested and recommended that they have other experts available. That was a
decision that was made during that process.

Mr.
Speaker, we will not be spending, as the Member opposite is suggesting,
millions and millions of dollars to negotiate with our valuable public
service. But I can tell you the one thing we won't do; we won't make
mistakes in collective bargaining that create these billions of dollars of
debt that the other governments have made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: The minister doesn't
believe we should have provided the salaries and benefits to public servants
that they have been provided with  very interesting.

She
also made a comment that we don't understand, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting
that the minister likes to stand up and say I don't understand. Well, it's
obvious to her, if she paid attention, the people of the province don't
understand either, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Your own caucus does not
understand your budget, Minister. As well, not only that, the media doesn't
understand your budget, I say to the minister. So it's not only the people
of the province who are not getting your budget, Minister. Maybe what is
common here is you, Minister. You should think about that. Maybe it's common
for you.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Member to get
to his question.

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to
ask the Premier another question. He doesn't want to answer today, but I'm
going to ask him: What process was used to select McInnes Cooper? Was this a
sole-sourced contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the
former premier of the province would know, the Department of Justice has the
ability to engage with legal counsel when it feels necessary, and in this
case that's exactly what happened. If the Member opposite wants to create
falsehoods and continue to present falsehoods, that's entirely up to him,
but the day of reckoning is going to come, Mr. Speaker.

Let
me be clear, every single dollar that is spent on valuable public services
is important. What I argued about with the Member opposite a couple of
minutes ago were the decisions that government made when they were in power
that wasted money, that didn't put money away for a rainy day and have us in
this province, Mr. Speaker, with the highest debt per capita of any province
in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I asked the
Premier what the cap was. The minister got up to answer and the minister
won't say what the cap is. So if she won't provide the information to the
people, then it puts us in a bit of a difficult situation, and also the
people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When
they won't tell us what the cap is or what the amount is, then it puts us at
that disadvantage. Not only that, but the people of the province want to
know. Because of the dozens of phone calls and messages that we continued to
receive over the weekend, especially on this matter, people want to know,
Mr. Speaker.

On
the campaign trail last year, the Liberals had said trust us. That's what
they said. In a December 22 news release the Liberals stated: Departments
and ABCs are to review plans to hire consultants and assess whether the work
can be deferred or performed using internal staff resources.

I ask the Premier: Can you inform the House why he's
hired external legal counsel and communications for work that can be done
internally?

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier question, bargaining with our
valuable public sector employees is a very important undertaking for a
government. That collective bargaining will take place this year.

We have some 27 collective agreements that will expire
in 2016, 11 NAPE contracts, six CUPE contracts. We also have agreements with
the nurses, the Association of Allied Health Professionals, as well as
teachers. It is important for us to make sure that as we assess about
ability to get the valuable work done of collective bargaining, with the
talents we have inside government, that we also make the decisions about how
to best supplement that in what will be a peak period of activity, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the Premier this: Was Mr. John Green, a
former partner with McInnes Cooper and current interim Chair of Nalcor, part
of any conversations about hiring McInnes Cooper?

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the former premier would know, Mr. Green  who was
appointed by his administration to one of the affiliated boards of Nalcor 
actually made himself available in this particular case while we're waiting
for the Independent Appointments Commission. Mr. Green is in an unpaid
position as Chair of Nalcor right now. We thank him for the volunteer work
he's doing on behalf of the province right now.

As the Member has just identified, the contract with
McInnes Cooper is one that is there to support the negotiations that will be
beginning with the valuable workers who are already part of this bargaining
process. Using McInnes Cooper, bringing their advice to the table is
important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, its National Mental Health Week but here in Newfoundland and
Labrador the Liberal government has just cut resources for mental health
programs and services.

I ask the Premier: If mental health is a priority  as
he stated in the fall  why are you removing resources from the system that
we all know is under-resourced?

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to state quite clearly
for the House, there have been no reductions in community services to mental
health. There have been some reallocations of staff from areas of severe
underutilization to best support those areas which are more overworked. So I
would refute the Member opposite's premise in the first place.

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, instead of
reallocating resources they're taking a couple of million dollars out of the
system, and those dollars are much needed. The Liberal government talked a
lot about mental health during the fall election campaign and the minister
talks about our all-party committee but there's not a single dollar in the
recent budget to support the implementation of anything that the all-party
committee might recommend this year. In fact, there are less resources in
this budget overall for mental health services.

How
can people believe you're sincere about making things better when your
budget clearly suggests otherwise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

As
the Member opposite who sits on the all-party committee on mental health
would know, until that report is generated it's not possible to know what
resources are necessary. That's the purpose of the mental health all-party
committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, the MHA for
St. George's  Humber wants library closures revisited and another Liberal
MHA says it's a terrible budget. The MHA for Bonavista says he'll fight
against budget cuts; yet, they will all stand when it counts and vote for
the budget instead of voting with their constituents.

I
ask the Premier: Why are so many of your MHAs following your lead and saying
one thing but then doing another?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as we listen to the question, I can guarantee you there is one thing
that the Member opposite got right, that this is a tough budget. It is a
tough budget, though, because the former administration didn't plan for
today, they didn't manage for today and the choices are very clear, there
was absolutely no choice I would say, Mr. Speaker, $2.7 billion in a deficit
this year 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:  nearly tripling the per
capita debt in our province in just seven years. That was your
responsibility to plan for where we are today. You failed to do it. Our
Members have a chance to speak out. I wish you had spoken up earlier when
your recognized the financial position you had put this province in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier
is clearly angry today. If I had Cabinet leaks after only five months in
office, I'd be angry too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Speaking of which, in a
recent Cabinet meeting before budget the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills both spoke against the Liberal
levy. The Finance Minister said the levy won't be included in her budget
calculator tool that isn't done yet. So now we're hearing from several
sources that the Liberals will be cancelling the levy.

I
ask the Premier: When will you announce the cancelation of the Liberal levy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As
soon as we can get the fiscal house of this province in shape, that's what
we will do.

The
Member opposite just completely ignores the great program that we have put
in place, the investment in low-income families in our province, our seniors


SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:  people with
disabilities.

Why
will you not talk about the $76.4 million that we've invested in the income
support supplement program? Right now, we have just less than 40 per cent of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that will not pay a temporary levy. It's a
temporary levy and as soon as we can get this province back in shape 
earlier than you guys did, I will guarantee you  this levy will go because
that's what it's meant to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl North, I will ask all Members
to respect the individual that I've identified to take the floor and speak.

The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier
isn't listening to his Cabinet. He isn't listening to his caucus. He isn't
listening to the people of the province.

So
I'll ask again: Premier, will you cancel the Liberal levy, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We
are going to be very happy to cancel this temporary levy. First and
foremost, we've got a lot of work to do because of the big mess that you
left this province in.

Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Member opposite is just simply ignoring that in
seven years, based on their plan, that the former premier said in the media
this week they had a plan  well, their plan would have been $53,000 in just
seven years per capita debt to the people of our province; second would have
been Quebec at $22,000.

Mr.
Speaker, those numbers are stark. They had an opportunity with $25 billion
in oil money and royalties. Where is that gone? Four billion dollars in tax
decreases  tax decreases, I would say, to higher income earners in our
province. That's who you gave your tax decreases to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, the MHA for
Harbour Grace  Port de Grave claimed that she had no input into the budget
and last week upon hearing about library cuts, the MHA for Terra Nova said
it was news to him. But the Premier maintains that everyone had input.

I
ask the Premier: Will you finally listen and make changes to the budget, or
will you allow your MHAs to vote with their constituents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members on this side of the House, we are actively engaged with all of them
about the difficult decisions that will have to be made in this budget. It
is definitely unprecedented, Mr. Speaker. It's been widely known. We've seen
people look at the mess that we've inherited from this previous government
and they've looked at it and they all know that there were very few choices
that we had to make.

Mr.
Speaker, our job right now is to secure the fiscal future of our province,
and that's what we're about to do. This budget is the first step in doing
that, and we'll be happy to work with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on
alternate measures that we can put in place. Things like the temporary levy
that's in place right now, we will be drawing that back. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, in the budget documents that has already been presented,
there is a plan to do just that. When you look at the forecast over the next
seven years, there is a process in place to get rid of that temporary levy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many
schools are starting to get the true picture of what Liberal choices will
mean. Parents are outraged with the reality that classrooms will be combined
with two grades in many schools throughout the province. Grade threes and
fours will share a teacher and classrooms in many schools. The same goes for
fives and sixes.

I
ask the minister: How can you justify proceeding with full-day kindergarten
at the expense of older children who will now have to merge in combined
classrooms?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the Member for
the question.

Interesting that the Member didn't have a similar concern last year when
they decided to remove 78 positions from the school system and also told the
people of the province it would have absolutely no impact on the system at
all  would not put any hardship.

The
Member  we didn't hear a word from him back in 2013 when they reduced all
matter of teaching positions, everything from school librarians to
administration to specialized positions. They cut and they cut and they
hacked and they cut. That member never stood up and said a single word. In
fact, he stood in his place and talked about how great the budget was 
cutting units.

We
know this is going to cause additional strain on the school system. We admit
that. We're in a difficult situation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Conception Bay East  Bell Island, I'd ask
the Member for Cape St. Francis to please respect the identified individual
to speak.

The
Member for Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It
wasn't our administration who cut 219 teaching positons this past week. It
wasn't this administration putting in blended classrooms.

While we support and believe in all-day kindergarten, I ask the minister:
Will he now reconsider implementing the full-day kindergarten? How can we
slash and cut teachers and programs for grades one to 12 while spending
approximately $100 million over the next three years?

Tell
me how we can do that and have better education in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I think
we've been pretty clear on the implementation of full-day kindergarten and
the plan to go ahead in September because of the benefits it has for young
children. I wish the Member opposite shared that interest in early learning.
Everybody else across the country seems to get it. They don't seem to get
it.

For
the Member's information, this year was a net reduction of 73 teaching
units. Unlike last year, when they decreased that by more, by 78, and stood
here in the House of Assembly and talking about how great the budget was
while they were cutting teaching positions.

We
acknowledge the move to combine grades is going to cause teachers additional
issues when it comes to classroom management and delivering on learning
objectives, but the bulk of the research in this area shows a negligible
impact on student achievement. Those are the facts. I encourage the Member
to read up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I
don't think I've ever seen a Premier privatize his or her own job. We have
no money for libraries and this government is socking it to low- and
mid-income earners with the levy but we can pay $350 an hour for high priced
help to do the collective bargaining when we already have well qualified
government employees to do it.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: How many lawyers, at $350 an hour, are going to
be used? What will be the estimated total cost of these services as well as
that of the reported communications consulting services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the
Member opposite, for clarity it's one lawyer at a rate of $350 an hour. As
Members of this House would be very familiar with, both sides of the House,
when there are negotiations about complex bargaining issues, particularly
like there was with pension bargaining and the changes in the pension plan
last year, government of the day at that time had two law firms engaged and
I believe the public sector unions also had a law firm engaged in that
activity, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

So
are we going to find out in Estimates how much money has been set aside for
these services because they still haven't given us the total cost, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: How many libraries could have been kept with the money government
plans to spend on this unnecessary expenditure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
went out and had a chat with the media this morning to just clarify some of
the issues around the reorganization and the regionalization of the library
system. One of the things I wanted to reassure people, that there are 25
libraries associated in the municipal buildings that are not going to have
any discontinuation of service until sometime about a year from now.

I
spoke with the chair of the Libraries Board this morning. We've been in
fairly consistent contact with the administration of the Libraries Board.
They are going to be working on a transitional plan that respects all the
unique situations in individual communities and work with groups at the
local level to try and find solutions if they want to have services to
continue beyond next year, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, in
responding to the tax on books and the closing of 54 libraries, one of our
best known authors, Kevin Major, said: this week I was humiliated by my
government. Other prominent writers and performing artists have also spoken
out, along with people across the province and country.

I
ask the Premier: Will he end this national embarrassment and cancel the
proposed tax on books and closure of libraries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for the opportunity to answer the question.

I
met with the Writers' Alliance and the book publishers earlier today, and I
met with them prior to the budget as well. What I will say is that Budget
2016 certainly was filled with many difficult decisions. When you look at
the HST on books, there is no change to the purchase of eBook services. They
always had the HST.

If
we look at school libraries, public libraries, and other institutions like
post-secondary institutions that qualify for the federal tax credit, the
rebate, they will still only pay the 5 per cent. They won't pay any more
than what they are paying now. So there is no change for those to be able to
access books at that affordable price.

In
terms of the library changes, I'll certainly speak 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, he wasn't listening to the people he met with, particularly the
publishers and people who care about libraries.

Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Finance has a brand new line which adds $20
million in grants and subsidies to that department which was not highlighted
on budget day.

I
ask the Premier: What exactly is that brand new line item of $20 million
designated for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll
certainly provide the information to the Member opposite. The Estimates book
is significantly large and I look forward to her showing me the exact line
item that she's referring to and we can provide some details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre for a quick question.

MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has put $20 million into a special pot of funding
to dole out instead of keeping much needed libraries, schools and dialysis
units open.

Is
the $20 million a slush fund for the Minister of Finance to do with as she
sees fit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the
Finance department Estimates haven't been done yet, so I understand why the
Member opposite has questions. Certainly, I'll be able to provide her that
information in Estimates and happy to bring that information into the House
if she wants that tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question
Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that the House do not adjourn
on Tuesday, May 3, at 5:30 p.m.

Further to Standing Order 11, I also give notice that this House will not
adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of
motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation containing a
presumptive clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in various
front-line emergency response professions including firefighters, emergency
medical services professionals, police officers, not already covered under
the federal legislation.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, this week being a week where we acknowledge and we discuss and we
understand the importance of mental health and having discussions about
mental health, I believe this petition is very timely at this point in time.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, is better understood today than it
ever has been before in history. It's becoming better understood as time
goes on. PTSD can affect front-line workers in many ways. It can be an
illness and an impact related directly to the jobs they do in protecting the
public in their various forms of emergency services that goes unnoticed for
many, many years.

I
know of a large number of cases where police officers, firefighters, medical
emergency responders who, later in their career, are slowly and eventually
figuring out that many of the illnesses they've endured during their
lifetime, many of the experiences and the place they find themselves in that
particular day is as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. Being
exposed to chaotic and stressful, and quite often fatal circumstances, that
quite often could be out of control and which they have to work at to bring
under control and to provide those emergency responses.

We
know now today, Mr. Speaker, as I said, better than ever before, how broadly
and how ranging this is. Under today's legislation, workers' compensation
has a very narrow view on who can be eligible for coverage under workers'
compensation for PTSD. As a matter of fact, when a person gets diagnosed
with PTSD, if they file for workers' compensation, they'll be told: Tell me
what event caused your illness? What event caused the PTSD?

We
also know better than we ever did before that quite often it's not a single
event. It's an accumulation of events. It's that continuing mounting
pressure and the stress on top of front responders, sometimes after months
or years of being exposed to these chaotic situations, as I mentioned, some
quite often fatal or multiple fatalities in a situation that it creates the
PTSD.

This
petition is to encourage our government to enact legislation containing a
presumptive clause so that if a person is diagnosed with PTSD it would be
presumed that it occurred in the workplace. Because, Mr. Speaker, quite
often it is very difficult to prove otherwise but it's a presumption that
happens in other places in Canada under other circumstances. What this
petition is doing is asking government to consider doing the same thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:

WHEREAS the deficit reduction levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing
a higher tax burden on low and middle income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as
currently demonstrated in other provinces as well as Australia, Norway and
other countries; and

WHEREAS government states in a 2016 provincial budget that the personal
income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the deficit reduction
levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive
taxation principles and that an independent view of the Newfoundland and
Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, I have submitted a number of these petitions over the last two
weeks, as has my colleague from St. John's East  Quidi Vidi. People are so
willing to sign this petition because they want to be heard about the levy.
We know the people of the province know that the levy is regressive.

I
believe that probably almost every single Member of the House of Assembly
knows that this levy is regressive. I also believe that almost every Member
of the government, every MHA in government knows that this levy is
regressive. I believe that most people in this House regret that government
has put forth this levy because, for instance, Mr. Speaker, it's so clear
how unprogressive this is.

If
you have two earners in one household each earning $50,000, both those
earners in that small household will each pay $600 on the levy. So from that
one small household, they will pay $1,200. They've got a mortgage to pay.
They've got extra insurance on their car, extra insurance on their house.
They've got an extra HST by 2 per cent. They're going to be paying extra
income tax. They're going to be paying $1,200 for the levy just for that
year.

Their next-door neighbour may be making $350,000, one single earner in that
house. That single household will pay only $900, although they're making
over three times what their next-door neighbour is. So their next-door
neighbour with two income earners are making $100,000 collectively, their
levy will be $1,200. The next-door neighbour who's making 3½ times what
they're making will only pay $900. Mr. Speaker, there's something totally
out of whack and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS this Deficit Reduction Levy, as introduced in Budget 2016, unfairly
targets the middle class; and

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy asks low-income earners to pay more than
their fair share instead of increasing taxes to high-income earners;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to immediately stop the introduction of
the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, as my
colleague just spoke on a petition on the levy, I'd go a different angle
with it. The levy, as we all know, has been well documented. It's been a
very unpopular levy. We've all been bombarded with emails. We understand the
impact it's on middle-income earners.

When
you take that in insolation, people are upset. When you put that in
conjunction with the rest of the budget items of your added 15 per cent to
your insurance, your income tax, your gas tax, all fee increases, the levy
is patently unfair to middle-class earners.

Mr.
Speaker, as we have said here, I could bring in a stack of petitions to back
up my claim of the people's view on this levy. People have views. The levy
is bad but altogether  the levy is just totally unpopular. It's the most
regressive, unpopular tax I think that's ever been introduced. When you put
it with everything else, this budget, in total, is just unbearable for most
people.

I do
call upon government to revisit the levy. Actually, as a matter of fact, I
think they should revisit a lot, but start with the levy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.

To
the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS many harvesters own fishing vessels of various sizes but because of
the policy regulations are restricted to using a smaller vessel, often
putting their crews in danger;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to make representation to the federal
government to encourage them to change the policy, thus ensuring the safety
of those harvesting snow crab.

I
believe the minister would agree with this, Mr. Speaker, because what's
happening now today, we have an inshore, midshore and an offshore crab
fishery. In a lot of cases the same fishermen are participating in all
sectors of this fishery, both inshore  most with inshore and midshore. But
the problem is and we have tragedy to show when we see a boat tied to the
wharf and it is a 65 footer or 50 footer, and when someone has to go out in
a 35-foot boat to harvest crab when they all have a bigger boat at the
wharf. Last year, we just saw it in Arnold's Cove with a crew, with a long
liner tied up at the wharf. They had to go out in a smaller boat and people
lost their lives.

This
is unfortunate; it is very unfortunate. I think all Members in the House of
Assembly that are familiar with this fishery  I'm sure the minister is 
this policy has to change. Our people are on the water every day and they
take their lives in their own hands. It's a hard fishery. The fishery is
done  I spoke to fishermen the other night and they were telling me they
leaving at 12 o'clock tonight because there was a window there that the
winds are not going to be as high as what they are. They could get out in
three days and get back, so they went early because of the window.

Safety is a major issue in any fishery but in the crab fishery when
fishermen, harvesters, have boats tied up to the wharf that would make their
lives and make their health safer, and we have regulations in place that are
forcing them in smaller boats, it's a huge issue. It's a huge issue in my
district and I'm sure in most of the opposite Members' districts it is also
an issue in theirs.

Mr.
Speaker, the policy hasn't changed. The policy first came in so that we made
sure that the inshore fishery was taken care of with the crab and gave them
a quota. But today, you'll see most of the fishermen are involved and
harvesters are involved in the midshore, offshore and inshore.

So
it's time for this policy to change. I ask the Minister of Fisheries if he'd
get his federal counterparts, talk to them about it because what we saw in
Arnold's Cove last year I hope never happens again. When you see a large
vessel tied up at the wharf when they have to use a small vessel.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move to Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners
Act, Bill 25, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first
time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded
by the hon. the Government House Leader that we shall have leave to
introduce Bill 25 and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is
it the pleasure of the House to introduce Bill 25?

All
in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce
a bill, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act, carried. (Bill
25)

On
motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

From
the Order Paper I call Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much 

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the previous
day the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works adjourned debate.

I
recognize the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's
certainly my pleasure to rise again today to speak with regard to the
budget. Before I get into making some of the remarks that I had planned to
make, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to clarify a couple of points.

My
hon. Member across the floor mentioned in Question Period about privatizing
collective bargaining. I just want to make sure the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador are fully aware that we have no intention of privatizing.

As
you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon when we're in negotiations 
previous governments have done it, governments throughout the country have
done it. We've engaged other opportunities with law firms to engage in the
discussions. That in no way says anything negative about the team we have.
We have an excellent team and we will  certainly our talented team is in
place. We will be negotiating in a fair and an open manner as we move
forward.

The
other item, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just bring attention to  because I
know the hon. Members opposite are passionate about the tax increases and
levies. I know the Member opposite made mention that someone making $300,000
will be paying $900. I also wanted to point out to the Member opposite that
the person who's making $300,000 in this new taxation year will actually be
paying $9,900 more dollars than they did last year.

So
we sometimes forget there's actually a 3 per cent increase because we often
say those in the higher income are not paying anything. That's not true
because they are actually being taxed 3 per cent higher than they were last
year.

Madam Speaker, sometimes in Question Period we never get the ample amount of
time to really get into the details of some of the policy and some of the
changes that we make. My hon. Member opposite talked last time about the
Town of Grand Falls-Windsor and certainly the impact this budget had.

Madam Speaker, we are fully aware of that. As a matter of fact, MHA Dean and
I met with the entire council of the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor; actually,
we met probably for about two, maybe almost three hours. We went through the
budget, went through some of the measures that's there, explained what
happened and what measures we have to take.

Madam Speaker, while it's disappointing  I'm disappointed too. I was the
mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor for six years and fought for having whatever
resources we could. I am disappointed with some of the measures we've had to
make. Obviously, very disappointed, but when we look at going forward,
looking at the financial mess we're in, obviously there were some tough,
tough choices that had to be made.

Not
one single one of us on this side of the House has any pride in what we've
had to do. I am relatively a compassionate person, Madam Speaker. I really
do care about the people in this province. I understand fully some of the
frustrations they're facing.

Madam Speaker, when I look at: What are our options? Where do we need to go?
We had to make some tough decisions. I know some of the Members on the other
side have been pontificating and standing and talking about how draconic
this budget is. I encourage them to take a look in the mirror and say to
themselves: What have I done to force this side of the House to make the
decisions we've had to make? I really encourage them to do that because the
decisions we've had to make are tough decisions.

The
Premier talked today about the fact that if we did nothing, if we continued
the way in which it was going, in five years every man, woman and child in
Newfoundland and Labrador would have a $54,000 per capita tax on the debt. I
mean, that is significant.

I
think, Madam Speaker, if I remember correctly, if that happened, the
Province of Quebec are looking at balanced budgets over the next number of
years, if that happened the people in the Province of Quebec at the same
time frame would be at $22,000 per man, woman and child. That's absolutely,
totally unsustainable and cannot happen. As a result of that, Madam Speaker,
we had to 

AN HON. MEMBER: They are second.

MR. HAWKINS:  and they are second. We
had to make some tough decisions in this budget.

Madam Speaker, I also wanted to reference the question that was asked with
regard to the 24-hour snow clearing. Again, that's a measure that we will be
putting in place next year. I want to assure the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador that safety is important to us. We know that in
the last number of years that actually the 24-hour snow clearing has been
put in place and what has happened is we have a dedicated crew that will be
there for the 24-hour snow clearing service.

Sometimes a dedicated crew, because of the conditions of the road, were not
required to be out clearing the roads. So, Madam Speaker, when we have the
24-hour snow clearing removed next year, we will make sure that we are
monitoring and we will make sure that the resources are in place so that
anytime between 10:00 p.m. and 4:30 a.m. if there is an impending storm, if
there is snow, we will make sure that our highways are cleared for the
people that are going to be using it.

Madam Speaker, it is not a case of us making those rash decisions without
giving any consideration to what will happen. We will monitor that very
carefully.

One
of the other points I wanted to make, Madam Speaker, is the fact that I know
the Members opposite have been talking about the fact that government has
not been engaging our federal partners and they refer to them as our federal
cousins. I could refer to them as our federal brothers because of the fact
that they have done 

AN HON. MEMBER: And sisters.

MR. HAWKINS:
And sisters because they have equality within their Cabinet. We have made
significant measures moving forward, Madam Speaker, to engage our federal
counterparts. Minister Sohi and I, on about four different occasions, have
discussed the infrastructure. We've talked about some of the infrastructure
criteria that were around the Building Canada Fund.

What
has happened through our discussions and through our conversations, the
minister has certainly listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
realizing that some of the criteria that were in place previously by the
previous federal government did not really apply to rural areas of the
province. The minister has been very understanding of that and has
subsequently sent a letter saying that some of the restrictions and the
criteria that were surrounding the New Building Canada Fund have been
lifted.

We
will now have more of an opportunity to do other work in other parts of the
province that previously would not qualify under the Building Canada Fund.
Madam Speaker, we have made a significant number of engagement, discussions
and success, I might add, with the federal government.

Madam Speaker, one of the other things that I wanted to reference is that
this government has taken a lot of pride in Labrador. One of the things that
we have done, I've worked with the federal government. In the previous
government they had a cap of $45 million on any work that was done on the
Trans-Labrador Highway.

What
we have done is we've worked with the federal government. They have removed
that cap and this year we have applied under the Building Canada Fund with
the Trans-Labrador Highway. We have requested $63 million, since that cap
has been removed, to work on the Trans-Labrador Highway, which we are going
to be doing. We're going to work on, particularly, Phase II and Phase III
work.

We
have really looked at Labrador as a very important area for us to maintain a
network of transportation, particularly with the highway. I know, Madam
Speaker, in your area as well in the South Coast, we have put a tremendous
amount of effort into trying to access money through the Building Canada
Fund for that. This year, we were able to maintain in our budget $62 million
for the provincial roadwork.

Now,
$62 million, if you put it in light of the request, I've had 1,500 requests
for road repairs. There are areas in this province that the road conditions
are deplorable  absolutely deplorable. I understand that, Madam Speaker. I
get it, but I've got 1,500 requests for road repairs. I had my staff cost it
out and it's somewhere in the vicinity of about a billion dollars to do all
of the road requests that have come in.

Madam Speaker, that's going to be absolutely, totally impossible. The
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development and myself met
with the mayor and deputy mayor from Conche just about a couple of hours
ago. I was glad to see them in the House today. I, too, had to talk to them
about the conditions of the road in that particular area. I understand fully
that there are some pressures in that area with the school closing and now
having to bus students over that road.

Madam Speaker, that's just one example of an area that we, and myself as a
minister and my staff, have to address. We have to look at opportunities and
ways in which we can accommodate these people that have all these requests.
Even though this budget is a difficult budget in some areas, I was able to
maintain $62 million in work for roads and I will continue to do that.

Madam Speaker, I want to just also say that this is the first year in a long
time that we've been able to get our tenders out for roadwork. The first
block of work that was announced back about a month ago, we are already
getting tenders back and we're already awarding work for that. This is
probably the earliest time we've been able to award tenders for roadwork. I
think that's a very positive step that we, as a government, have taken.
We've committed to that. We will continue to commit to that.

Madam Speaker, the other issue I want to talk about is the fact that we do
have two blocks of funding out for roadwork now. Over the summer we're going
to continue to work with our partners and our stakeholders and we're going
to put together a five-year plan.

As I
said, Madam Speaker, we do have 1,500 requests that we've got to work
through. We're going to work through those requests using a screening model
whereby we are scoring to determine what would be the highest priority for
us. We will continue to work with that.

Over
the next several months, Madam Speaker, that will be a responsibility that I
will have to do. I need to look at all of these and determine how we want to
move forward in five years. It will position the government, it will
position us to be better prepared and to be able to avail of opportunities,
resources and bundling, and being able to do more work for the limited
amount of money we have.

I
think it's a great approach that we have taken. I'm looking forward to
working through that with our stakeholders to make sure we are able to
position ourselves to be able to get more work done when it comes to roads.

Madam Speaker, the other thing I wanted to reference is  because I think
infrastructure is important to us  this year this government, this budget,
is allocating $570 million in infrastructure spending. That includes some
schools and hospitals and repairs. This is significant. That's a half a
billion dollars that this government has committed to this year in our
infrastructure spending. That will create employment. It will create an
interest in people wanting to get out there and take advantage of the
opportunities that are in this particular area. So that's a significant
amount of money that we're doing.

Madam Speaker, one of the other areas that we want to look at is that this
is not localized. We are looking at a provincial-wide in the province and on
the Island and also, of course, in Labrador so we can get as much work as
possible out this summer. We want to get it out early to take advantage of
the construction season because we know in this province we have a very
short window when we look at construction. We want to get those tenders out
early and we want to make sure that people have an opportunity to work in
this province in this coming construction season.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of good things, even though this is a tough
budget and we all understand that, we are fully aware of that 

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!

I
remind the hon. Member his time has expired.

MR. HAWKINS:  but we will work to
make sure every area of the province is represented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member
for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker.

I'm
glad once again to have a chance to speak in the budget debate to set some
facts straight. The government side keeps telling us that we don't know the
facts. We even had the Minister of Finance stand here when she spoke, one of
the times that she has spoken, and said that they want to make sure that
people get the right facts and the correct facts and the real facts. That's
quite a statement. She also talks about the fact that the Members opposite,
meaning those of us on this side of the House, continue their habit of
telling half stories and half-truths.

That's quite a statement that the minister made. I'm glad to stand again
today and get some facts out there. I'd like to pick up on a couple of
points made by the Minister of Transportation and Works. First of all,
before going into one of the details, I want to pick up on language he used
and language which the other side is using constantly, and it's the
difficult budget. It sounds like something that was laid in their lap,
something that was given to them and they have to deal with this difficult
budget.

No,
the only ones who had something laid in their lap are the people of the
province. Because these people chose the budget, they created the budget the
way it is, and there were all kinds of choices they could have made. They
made the choices that they made. So it's not a difficult budget for them;
they're the ones who created the budget.

I
need to make that statement because I'm getting so tired of hearing the
other side of the House, the government, talking about this difficult budget
as if somebody brought this package, laid it on the Premier's desk and on
the desk of the Minister of Finance and said this is what you have to do.
That's not what it is. They made the choices. They're the ones who have
created what's in the budget, so I have to make that statement once again
because I'm getting tired of hearing the phrase difficult budget.

The
other thing I want to pick up on, the Minister of Transportation and Works
picked up on the fact that I was talking about the levy and others of us
over here were talking about the levy as well. However, he used, for
example, the whole thing of the top bracket. As we all know, the top tax
bracket, people earning over $175,700, that top bracket will be paying only
$900 for a levy while somebody earning $20,000 will be paying $300. We don't
have to do the math again. The ratio is very clear that it is most unfair
and unjust to the lower income earner.

The
Minister of Transportation and Works pointed out, reminding us in case we
didn't know, that the top bracket is having their rate increase between the
past year and the coming year by 1.5 per cent. That's true but so is the
person who is earning $20,000 having their rate increased too. Granted, it's
0.5 per cent but 0.5 per cent for them is a lot more than the 1.5 per cent
for the top bracket. So it is still unfair.

He's
trying to get us to point out to people that oh no, remember those poor
people with $300,000  he's the one who used it  they've got to pay a lot
more this year because of their tax going up. I hope he's listening to what
he's saying because he's comparing that to the person earning $20,000 who
doesn't have a cent from cheque to cheque, not a cent from cheque to cheque,
having to come up with $300 more on top of everything else. On top of the
fact that their income tax has gone up, on top of the fact that our retail
tax is going up by 2 per cent, on top of the fact that the gas tax is going
up 16.5 per cent.

These are the realities and for them to protect high-earning people from
having to pay a little bit too much money in their definition is just
unconscionable. I can't believe it. It's the same way with the tax brackets
when you look at the comparison between us and Atlantic Canada. The Minister
of Finance has made reference to this. She keeps saying that we're ignoring
the fact that by 2017 the top bracket will be up to 18.3 per cent. She
insists on saying, in different ways, we are comparable to the rest of
Atlantic Canada.

Well, I invite the Minister of Finance to get out a document we got from her
department, a document which reminds us that in actual fact, right now at
this moment, the top bracket earners in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are
paying 21 per cent as the rate for their income tax, which at this point in
time really is different from ours. Because at this point in time, ours, for
the top bracket, is 15.3 per cent. We're only going to be putting that up to
18.3. So it is really quite not the whole truth.

The
Minister of Finance has said that we're saying half-truths. It's not the
whole truth when she says we're comparable to Atlantic Canada when the other
two provinces we most can compare with in Atlantic Canada are still paying 
even in 2017, will be paying quite a bit more. It will be a 2.7 per cent
higher income tax rate than our top bracket.

I
wish they would tell the whole story. They say we're not telling it. What we
end up doing is telling the part of the story they're not telling. That's
what we have to do. I guess that's our job as Opposition. I'm happy to
accept that as my job as Opposition, but don't say when we do that, that
we're not telling the whole story. We're just adding the rest of the
information.

Do
you know what? I don't even have to add it for the people of the province to
understand it because they're the ones who are saying it to me. The people
of the province are doing their mathematics.

Again, the Minister of Finance has made reference that she's going to put
this tool up on a website so people can figure it out. I've got news for
her: they've got it figured out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL: They know how to add it
all up. They've added up the levy and the income tax and the increase in gas
 which I bet is not going to be on her website  and every single expense
they're going to have to pay. The fees they're going to have to pay.

That's why people who are doing the math  middle-income people who are
doing the math are telling us they're going to have to pay between $3,000
and $6,000 more a year. They're not going to be able to do it. It's an
insult. What an insult to the people of the province to say that you have
this tool so you can figure it out. They've got it figured out.

One
of the hundreds of emails  one I actually got today. I have my binder here;
there's another binder being started. One of my emails today said for me to
tell the government that if anybody knows how to figure out how much money
they have to spend and how much more they might have to spend, it is lower
income people because they spend their time counting every cent they spend,
and they are counting the cents they don't have for things they need. I just
really am flabbergasted by what I hear from the government side of this
House.

Let
me talk a bit more about facts. Let's look at the whole issue of the closing
of libraries. I can't believe this government just seems to think there's
nothing to it. I'm absolutely shocked they think that way.

The
Minister of Education today stood in the media explaining  in case they
didn't understand  only some of them are closing this year and 25 more will
close next year. Just in case they didn't understand that and we didn't pick
up on it. That was an insult as well.

We
all know there's two blocks. That one group is going to be going this year
and another group next year. The bottom line is 54 libraries in our rural
communities are being closed. That's the bottom line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL: That's the part they
don't want to hear said.

I
have an email from somebody from the District of Fogo Island  Cape Freels.
He says there are 40 electoral districts in Newfoundland and Labrador and
there were 54 libraries closed in the province. Our district, Fogo Island 
Cape Freels has Centreville, Change Islands, Fogo, Greenspond, Hare Bay,
Lumsden and Musgrave Harbour  seven of the 54 libraries. One district
representing less than 2.5 per cent of the province is getting just shy of
13 per cent of the cuts. Now where is the justice in that?

He
goes on and points out something that should be obvious to this government,
although they don't seem to know what an island means. Two of those
libraries are on separate islands that had their ferry shut down most of
this past year with over an hour to another library, plus two-hour waits for
ferries. So where's the 30 minutes in between getting from their community
to a library.

It
doesn't seem to matter because it's only 15 per cent of the population that
isn't 30 minutes away. I mean this blows my mind, as was pointed out
actually by the mayor from Lourdes. He points out something extremely
significant. He said, while the government is maintaining more than 85 per
cent of residents who are within a 30-minute drive to the nearest library,
it's only because the bulk of the population in this province is on the
Avalon Peninsula. That's the only reason.

It
is so disingenuous for them to be pointing this 30 minutes out. I'll let my
colleague for Bell Island, when he gets up, say this himself. I also want to
point out Bell Island may look like it's 30 minutes away, but by the time
you sit in the lineup of the ferry, get down there, line up  and you really
have to get down early to line up then do your ferry run  you're talking
more than 30 minutes. That's one that's just outside of St. John's. That's
the reality.

They
continue talking about us not knowing what we're talking about and telling
people they don't know the facts. The people on the Port au Port Peninsula
know the facts. They have no library. This is disgraceful. The MHAs from the
government side out there know it's disgraceful and they're starting to say
it. I can't believe this government doesn't get the implication.

The
Minister of Education today, when speaking to the media, made comments that
were very, very interesting. He talks about the libraries that are in the
schools. For example, in Port au Port the library is in the school. He says
they're going to remain open with school board resources and teachers, not
just provincial libraries board employees.

What
is he doing? The Minister of Education in that statement to the media today
is downloading the cost of keeping the library open onto the backs of the
community. Let's look at it. He's saying with school board resources and
teachers. So the teachers now in Port au Port, they can't rely on the fact
that the community library  because it's not a school library; it's a
community library  is in their building.

They're going to be expected now, on top of all the other issues that they
have to deal with, on top of full-day kindergarten which they didn't have
before, on top of, I would suspect, multigrade classes, on top of those
classes having children with specialities in the classroom and trying to
make an inclusive classroom  on top of that they're now going to have to
run the library. This is disgraceful. This downloading is absolutely
disgraceful.

This
is another point that the mayor of Port au Port takes up. He points out the
fact that the government is downloading. He says in relation to the town
council or local service district taking up the slack, neither body is in a
financial position to do anything about it. That's the reality.

Those people sitting opposite me, the majority of them are in rural
communities. Surely they know the limits that are on the finances of the
municipalities. We have former mayors sitting across from me right now,
several of them. They know the difficulties for a town council to maintain
itself. So when the Mayor of Port au Port says that they do not have the
fiscal capacity, he knows what he is talking about. They don't.

Here
we have this government downloading, number one, on municipalities,
downloading on the schools where there are libraries in schools, downloading
on volunteers because that comes out on what they're saying as well, that
there are other groups around who can help out. When are they going to
understand that there is more to this than meets the eye?

A
library is a service in the community with people in the library who have
the skills and the expertise and the knowledge to work with those who come
to the library. Whether those who come to the library are children from the
school that the library may be in or from the community in general, because
the library is a separate building as it is in Greenspond, for example.

Whether it's the children, whether it's seniors who are coming and may be
want to go on a computer, want to do some searching for information, want to
do some their own research on computers but don't know how to use them, the
librarian is there to help. Whether it's anybody from the community who
comes in and whatever it is that they want, the librarian is a skilled
person.

This
is what this government seems to be ignoring. So to think oh well, some
committee in the community can open the door, because that's all it will be,
open the door and let people come in, that is not acceptable. The library is
a source of information. The library is a source of research for people who
want to do research. The library as well, which doesn't seem to mean a thing
to anybody on the other side of the House  it certainly doesn't mean
anything to the Minister of Education; he's totally ignoring it. The library
is a community centre.

It's
a place where people in the community gather. It's a place where the seniors
come and they just don't come as individuals, they come and they have their
book clubs, for example. This is the other thing about downloading. The
government has put quite a number of things on the website. That didn't
start with this government. That's been something that's been going on for a
while; it is part of our modernization. So you can go on the website and you
can get your driver's licence. You can go on the website and you can get
your car registered every year, et cetera.

The
interesting thing is when you go on the website, you actually get a little
break because the fee is lower than if you turned up in an office somewhere.
But when you close down these 54 libraries, if there are people who have
been going on and doing their registrations and whatever it may be, and
paying fees to government, not only are they now going to have to travel a
distance, paying 16.5 cents more a litre of gas, not only are they going to
have to do that but when they get to the other place, if there is no library
around them and they have to go into a government office, they will pay more
to get their driver's licence. They will pay more to register their car, on
top of having to pay for extra money, an awful lot of extra money to drive.

So
these are some the realities. These are some of the facts. These are some of
the things which the people on the other side of the House say are fear
mongering to talk about. No, these are realities. This is the truth. So when
are they going to deal with it?

I'm
still in a state of shock. I cannot believe  I'm hoping I'm going to wake
up and find out that this is not happening. And I hoped on one level, I knew
on another, but I hoped on one level that the Minister of Education was
going to say good news, we've realized we can't do this.

How
can they not listen to the mayors? How can they not listen to the seniors
who are speaking out? How can they not listen to the schools that are
speaking out? How can they insist that what they're doing is okay and
they're gutting the communities? You take a place like Greenspond. It's
losing its school, and I think that was sort of inevitable, but both the
school and the library are very important centres in Greenspond. So now with
one fell swoop, they're losing their school and they're losing their
library. That's happening in more than one place. So this is completely
unacceptable.

I
invite the government over there, if they really want to face the facts,
realize that their budget as it stands is only part of the story, look at
the impact of that budget and that they can't take one piece of the budget
like the levy and forget everything else that's also being laid on the backs
of the people.

This
is the reality. These are the facts. I will continue pointing out these
facts. I know my colleague for St. John's Centre will continue pointing out
these facts. I'm sure the Official Opposition will. As long as we continue
to have people sending us their information, we'll continue bringing that
information in here to the House to make this government  at least force
them to listen to listen to some of the facts.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: I remind the hon.
Member her time has expired.

MR. KENT: A point of order, Madam
Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I'm asking for leave of the House. I must apologize; we'd
like to revert on Orders of the Day to Notices of Motion so that I can
present the motion that will be debated for Private Members' Day on
Wednesday. I apologize to the House for the oversight earlier.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does
the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member
for Mount Pearl North on notices of motion.

MR. KENT: I thank hon. Members for
their co-operation.

I
give notice that I will move the following private Member's resolution:

BE
IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the introduction of legislation
for the recall of elected Members of the House of Assembly, similar in
principle to the legislation in effect in British Columbia where a
registered voter can petition to remove from office the Member of the House
of Assembly from that voters district, provided the voter collects
signatures for more than established percentage of voters eligible to sign
the petition in that electoral district.

That
motion will be seconded by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Madam
Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63, the private Member's resolution just entered
by the Member for Mount Pearl North is the one that we'll be debating on
Wednesday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm
glad to be able to stand in my place today and speak to this year's budget.
I have to point out, Madam Speaker, that we all realize this is a tough
budget. Every district in this province is impacted by this budget.

I
think we should step back and ask why are we here, Madam Speaker. A wise man
once told me that it is important to know where you come from to know where
you're going. The way we go as the new government, unfortunately, has been
determined by the former administration, in excess of a $2 billion deficit,
threatened credit ratings, mismanaged megaprojects, all of which has brought
this wonderful province to its knees.

The
irony in all this, Madam Speaker, is that the former administration came
through 12 years with the most revenue that this province ever experienced;
I believe in the vicinity of $25 billion, if I remember correctly. The
Leader of the Opposition in his budget address stated that he realizes that
hundreds of millions of dollars are needed for infrastructure and that from
time to time it has to be deferred.

The
former administration, even with its billions of dollars in revenue deferred
infrastructure. Whether it be for financial reasons or political reasons, we
are left to wonder.

The
Member for Ferryland, in his budget address stated he realizes or
understands that projects must be deferred. The Official Opposition, most
have been in government and they realize or they know what it is like to
defer projects. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition stated he
knows what it's like when requests come in and no is the answer that has to
be given.

Madam Speaker, this deficit that we're here to address is our problem, but
it's not our fault. The Official Opposition does not want to accept any
responsibility and they have taken great measures to try and avoid being
held responsible. Madam Speaker, they don't get off the hook that easy.
Whether they like it or not, we're in this together. The Opposition are in
it because they caused it and we are in it because it's our job now to fix
it.

Madam Speaker, we, as with all governments, would love to start with a clean
slate but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The first order of our
administration is to get the provincial finances  I state and should remind
everyone  that we inherited back to a level where we can actually start
over. In order to fix this mess that they handed us, we have to make tough
choices and these choices affect all of us who live here in this great
province.

Madam Speaker, no government in history wants to deliver a budget like we
had to. In 2006, the former administration I'm sure did not want to deliver
the budget they brought in back then. When you compare what we have had to
do, we're pretty much back to where we were in 2006. Having said that, Madam
Speaker, we're essentially back to where we started.

In
general, Madam Speaker, as a province we've been in this situation before.
The difference this time around is we don't have the billions of dollars in
royalties that the previous administration had. We have to generate revenue
through harsh reality to stave off the problems that we have been left with.
We must focus on our goal. We must rebuild for a stronger future.

Madam Speaker, we managed to shrink the deficit by one-third. So imagine
what we could have done if we had the royalties that the former
administration had throughout the last 12 years. It is through the guidance
of our Premier and the Minister of Finance that we begin to weather this
harsh reality and get our province through it. We will, because we simply
don't have any choice.

As
the Minister of Finance began the difficult task of finding out the reality
of the province's financial situation, only then did she see a different
reality than what we were told by the previous administration. The Premier
had asked prior to the election for the correct numbers and did not get
them. So the reality only came out after the election. Officials in the
Finance department were concerned and worried about the downturn in our
economy. They were concerned and worried a long time before the election.

Madam Speaker, when you get information that is not correct and hidden away,
it impacts the decisions you have to make. When you get the right
information it changes your plans. This happens in every situation in our
lives and we must adjust our plans accordingly. This is exactly what
happened leading up to the delivery of this year's budget.

It
is an enormous task we have been handed, Madam Speaker. The party is over
and it's now our job to clean up the mess. The process is tough on
everybody. When our provincial credit rating is compromised and the taxation
plan stands to be much more severe than it is now with bonding agencies
asking us to cut further. Madam Speaker, drastic problems call for drastic
measures.

Again, I don't deny this budget is tough. I feel the impacts in my district.
Every one of us in this hon. House has certainly felt the impacts. We
certainly look forward to working towards getting this huge deficit under
control so we can go back to our districts with some removal of some of the
tough issues we've had to face.

Drastic measures have to be taken in order to stave off disaster. The
difference between this government and the previous administration is that
we don't have $25 billion to work with. Given the magnitude of the deficit,
it is obvious the former administration not only blew $25 billion in
revenue, but they blew an extra $2 billon in revenue they didn't have. This
is part of the problem we have to address. Address it we will, Madam
Speaker.

As
hard as this task is on all of us right now, as I said earlier, we've
actually cut the deficit by one-third. The sooner we can get past this
deficit  a deficit we inherited  the sooner we can get our great province
back on track. If we go back through the years, tough budgets have had to be
tabled on both sides of this hon. House. We, as a government, have to make
tough choices, as did previous administrations, in order to work towards
earning our existence as a province. The last time it was the former
administration that tabled a tough budget. This was in 2006. So given our
inherited debt in 2016, we are forced to take tough measures also.

The
economy has experienced a world-wide downturn and it has affected every one
of us in this province. The economy has reached levels that have nowhere to
go but up. Having reduced enormous debt that the previous administration
handed us, we have managed to bring the deficit to a level which, if left
unchecked, would have reached $2.7 billion.

Madam Speaker, I hope, as with all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, to
come to a point where we no longer depend on the price of oil or other
commodities to sustain our existence. The previous administration has
clearly shown that is not the right way to go on running the affairs of our
great province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member
for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's
a pleasure to get up again and speak about the budget. Like I said last
time, it's not so much I'm happy to speak about the budget, but it's
important for us to get up and share our views on the budget for the people
that we represent in our districts because they ask us on a daily basis to
speak up for them. It's like I said before, it's what we're elected to do.
It's what I've committed to do for the people in my district, and I will
continue to do that, Madam Speaker.

I
have various areas I can go on the budget but I guess the first one, the
latest one coming up now, is the schools. I guess the libraries closing was
a separate one from the schools, but you have multi-grade teaching, class
size increased, full-day kindergarten. It's not so much  we were in favour
of full-day kindergarten. But is this the best time to spend the cost of
full-day kindergarten when I don't know if we're really prepared in our
schools? I know I have issues up in my district, and I actually spoke to the
minister on it.

Parents are really concerned of 28 kids going into a class that was really
only designed for 14. Team teaching, that's creating a lot of stress on a
lot of families. Madam Speaker, I have emails that show  the majority of
them are from young families who have huge concerns with full-day
kindergarten. I've told them I'd advocate for them.

Recently in a local paper up there, I was asked a question on it as well.
It's not a matter of saying it's terrible about full-day kindergarten
because we believe in it; it's just that we believe that there is a better
way it could be implemented at a more appropriate time when all the
resources are in place. People had enough notice; a one-year delay is not
going to be the end of the world.

You
are looking at September now, we're getting closer to the drop-dead date
and, unfortunately, it looks like it's probably going to happen. Team
teaching in our schools when you're looking in a small classroom  I know my
children went to these classrooms when there was 13, 14 kids for half a day


SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PETTEN: They are making a lot of
noise over there, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PETTEN: Those classrooms are
small rooms and I can attest to that. Actually I went up and read at a
literacy week reading and I spoke to a lot of parents, and there were
teachers there. They are really saying we're maxed out now, how are we going
to put these extra  I'm not sure how many kids there is going to be when
you double class size. You are looking at probably an extra 40 or 50
kindergarten students at least a day into a room that's designed for 14.

I've
had a lot of representation  actually ironically, in my area, I think St.
Edward's Elementary poses one of the biggest challenges to parents
especially. They strongly feel  and I know a lot of the educators feel 
that the school is not the appropriate size to house full-day kindergarten.

That's something that I know it's a budgetary item and it's a spending item,
but it's included in the budget and it's causing a lot of  on top of all
the other things in the budget it's causing a lot of stress on parents.
They've made their case to me loud and clear. I promised I would bring it to
the floor of the House of Assembly which I'm doing now, Madam Speaker.

We
look at the budget; I remember a few years ago my former boss, we'll say, or
former minister, Terry French, used to always say we can't go death by a
thousand cuts. When you do a budget, you're faced with a few tough
decisions. I heard him say it so often. It was like yeah, fine, you have to
cut, but do you cut every little thing, do you affect little person  every
person, everything, every program where they make some big substantial cuts,
lessen the blow to the mass and get it done that way. It's a lot of truth.
People can argue on both sides of it.

If
you look at 24-hour snow clearing, we're saving $1.9 million of a budget of
$8-plus billion. Madam Speaker, $1.9 million  and people from Bull Arm were
irate last week on the radio. This will be a normal thing next winter. So as
I pointed out to the Minister of Transportation, this will be a regular
occurrence.

I
worked in that department. When you have a dusting of snow the phone starts
ringing, and they don't stop ringing until the spring comes, which usually
doesn't happen until June or July. For $1.9 million, to be cutting the
service like that, Members on the government side when in Opposition lobbied
for 24-hour snow clearing in their communities. I remember, I was in
Transportation last year and I used to hear so I didn't blame them. I
thought that we should have had more 24-hour snow clearing. I really believe
that 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of
Justice wanted it.

MR. PETTEN: Yes, that's right. The
Minister of Justice lobbied. I believe the 24-hour snow clearing is very
important. You're saving $1.9 million  and I heard the people on the radio
and I've talked to people actually. I have family that works out in Long
Harbour and that. They have concerns because they're leaving to go to work
at 4 in the morning, and our plows will not hit the road until 5 o'clock,
5:30.

If
we were saving $19 million or $100 million I'd say, well b'y, it's a tough
decision. It's all about choices, but $1.9 million, I can hardly justify
that's a rational reason to do something that's going to put people  like I
said before, it's going to put people's lives in danger. It's pittance to
the big scheme of things. It's death by a thousand cuts.

You're looking at libraries closing. I believe we're saving  I might be
correct on this  a million dollars. Look at a million dollars a year and
look at the grief and strain that's put on a lot of these small communities.
My community of CBS is a larger community and it won't have such a
detrimental effect. There are plans in place for a regional library there
and right now it's not on the block.

When
you listen to Fogo, you listened to my colleague for Conception Bay East 
Bell Island, they're islands and we're closing down these little small
libraries, we're saving $1 million. All you have to do is flick the radio on
and listen, read the emails that are coming in and read the paper. The
Minister of Education I'm sure has heard it loud and clear. But again, I
understand trying to change things and do things better and regionalize. I'm
not against any of that, but again we're saving $1 million.

So
we've cut 24-hour snow clearing out that a lot of people will  I anticipate
next winter is going to be very interesting how that's perceived. We're
cutting out the libraries. Now we've saved $2.9 million and we're faced with
a $2 billion deficit. Again, it's death by a thousand cuts.

You
can go on down the road. In Question Period, my colleague mentioned about
teacher cuts. The Minister of Education pointed out that the former
government cut 70-something positions. We're looking at 200-and-some-odd
positions, am I right? It's a far cry  it is triple the amount. Teachers
have been emailing me in my district, constituents, they're really
concerned. I'm not a teacher. I can listen to their rationale. I watched the
other night the president of the teachers union was on and he voiced his
concerns, I thought, very candidly. He articulated it well. Those are the
people that know. They live and breathe this stuff and it's a huge concern.

You're cutting teaching positions. You're doing multi-grade teaching, which
I haven't got a clue how that is going to ever work out. You have full-day
kindergarten coming in. We're going to implement some positions along the
way to offset some of the losses.

Again, I'll go back to what are we really saving here. I don't know if we're
saving anything. I got emails and I'm going to read some of the emails out,
two of them. I think it's important actually because some of them I thought
were very to the point. There's one thing I'd also like to point out. For
the last number of years after living here  we all lived here all our lives
 a lot of people said people have a lot of confidence. They had a bounce in
their step. They were spending money. They were making investments. They
felt a sense of hope. They were resettling. People were moving back.

I
don't think there is any Member in this House that can honestly deny that
wasn't happening. The place was vibrant. Everything was moving. I'd be up in
Goose Bay, up in Labrador, and the place was alive. I had the fortune of
travelling a lot throughout the province and I saw a lot of small
communities. They were very alive and people were looking at themselves
differently. We finally found our way. It was nice to see. We all lived here
most of our lives. We went to tough times.

I
don't see that any more, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, I find the
bounce in people's steps is not what it was. I mean consumer confidence 
we're only in the early stages of this budget. It is not really fully
implemented, of course, until we have the vote. People's consume confidence
is down.

In
my district I have a lot of seniors but I also have a lot of contractors,
home builders. I know some quite well and their business is after
plummeting. They will only do turnkeys. They will not build anything in
advance of possible sales. One guy is stuck with four or five homes now.
He's wondering how he's going to do it.

On
top of everything with the extra costs in this budget, the housing market is
slowing down big time. Now it's still going but it's on the fear of the
unknown. A lot of the possible repercussions of the budget may not happen
for another year, effect the economy, but people's confidence is now is
shattered. Now they're pulling back. People's home spending, they are
cancelling their vacations.

Our
infamous Open Line host said
shortly after him and his wife  Paddy Daly said him and his wife cancelled
their vacation the night before. They were only going to travel through the
province.

I
spent time in tourism and I know a big part of our tourism economy comes
from in-province travel. We always go with our flashy tourism ads, which are
quite beautiful, but that's more intended for the out of province. We have
markets in the US and up in Ontario, which basically is the core areas we
concentrate on. That does bring a lot of money to the province but  I'm not
sure of the breakdown but it's probably a 50-50, it might even be a 60-40
split of local resident travel. A lot of people don't realize that.

They
say our tourism numbers are way up, but a lot of that is from in-province
travel. Personally, I am into RVing. I have my own trailer. You're adding
gas tax on, upping the fees in all the parks, on top of all the other stuff
that's going to cut into the money they're going to use. I anticipate you
are going to see a big drop.

Tourism operators are the ones that operate on the highway. They have their
bed and breakfasts. They're open six months a year. They can't wait for the
summer season. We are hitting it now with May month.

Being in tourism, up close and personal, I know a lot of these people. That
is their livelihood. They have a six-month window to make enough to get them
through the year. I really think this budget is going to have a detrimental
effect on them. Time will tell, but don't be surprised. They will be
speaking publicly as the summer goes on because I expect they're really
going to hurt.

Madam Speaker, I have some emails  some comments that some of my
constituents send. I have a lot of them but I just took out some. Some
quotes: I have to let you know, I do not agree with the disrespect being
shown to you and the Liberal party on social media.

This
was a message that was directed at  I want to point this one out. This was
an email I got. It was sent to Minister Bennett and cc'ed to me. I wanted to
make that point because I agreed with that comment. I don't agree with the
personal attacks. We're talking about a budget. We're talking about how it
affects constituents, but it shouldn't be personal. I responded to this
person and I agreed with him. I don't agree with that. I wanted to make that
clear in the House.

In
that email, he has a young family. He said: We're putting down our roots
here, starting a family in Newfoundland, but after much thought and
consideration we've come to the conclusion it's no longer affordable for us
to do so. Starting a family is very important to us both, so we are now
looking for work in New Brunswick and planning on moving there as soon as
possible. I know we are not alone. I feel a lot of other highly educated
young people and families will end up leaving the province.

He
lists off his reasons. It was a long email so I wouldn't read it all,
obviously, but 16.5 cents a litre on gasoline, the deficit reduction levy,
the increased HST.

Now,
I'll read what he said about that: I sort of expected this and I was okay
with the increase in HST from 13 to 15 per cent as the PC party had
proposed. My problem is with the way the Liberal party mishandled the
increase. First your party promised not to increase the HST  this is
meaning the Liberal party of course  gaining votes I'm sure, only then to
increase it once getting elected. The 15 per cent tax on insurance and the
15 per cent tax on books, which has also caused a lot of upheaval.

The
tax on insurance, that 15 per cent, I've said it to my colleagues here;
everyone seems so focused on the levy when I presented the petition. I've
talked to many people, and when you bring it up to them they stop and say:
Yes, I never really looked at that because it's not a lot of attention on
it.

Fifteen per cent on insurance is going to cost some families more than what
the levy is going to cost. Depending on what you have insured. As we all
know, insurance is not cheap in this province.

On
the books; well, I guess we've all gotten emails from authors, Mr. Major and
various others and from people alike. The illiterate rate is very high in
this province. I don't know how shutting down libraries or taxing books is
going to help with that. Maybe I'm missing something.

We
are told on a daily basis we don't understand, and the people don't
understand in the province. So I guess once again I'll call upon the
government, maybe they can explain it to us in a better way. We don't
understand and most of my constituents don't understand.

Madam Speaker, I live in a district with a lot of young, educated, working,
smart people, so if they tell me they don't understand, I'll join with them
because I'll say if you don't understand, I definitely don't understand.
Maybe we'll wait one day and someone will enlighten us all. I am sure the
Member for Cape St. Francis finds the same problem in his district.

Another email, Madam Speaker, I'd like to make note of. Again, these ones
hit me. I'm a resident of CBS and as my family's member I would like to
express my concerns to you about the Budget 2016 and the impact it will
have. My husband and I have two young children. My first concern is the
effect the proposed changes are going to have on their education system. Our
youngest will begin school in September, entering full-day kindergarten
program. One of the five kindergarten classes at our school will have 28
students, if not more, with two teachers in a room, under the co-teaching
model. Even with an extra teacher, 28 children at this age in one classroom
are far too many in order to give students attention required to be
successful.

Well, we need that clarified, Minister, and I respect that's the answer I
would like to be able to tell these parents 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN: I'm getting these emails
from many.

My
next serious concern is closure of half the public libraries in the
province. As I stated earlier and I spoke to the minister, CBS was spared
and I am pleased about that. I am glad, and so is this person. But they are
just, in general, again about the libraries.

Another point in her email, she said my final issue, I wanted to voice my
concern on this levy. Personally we'll have to pay $900 and it will not be
an issue for us; however, I know many people who are already struggling with
this huge issue and I don't think this tax was determined in a fair manner.
I feel the overall approach in dealing with our province's debt through deep
cuts, increased fees and levies leave us all with a very hopeless feeling
about our future. Young and old alike, I think we all anticipated a
difficult budget, but we had hoped for some more thoughtful approaches to
increasing revenue other than cuts and taxes.

A
very large issue for many, myself included, is the lack of communication and
explanation of many of these decisions. As I said, we don't know  everyone
is waiting for an answer. This has left a taste of mistrust and hurt, a
feeling of betrayal in the mouths of many.

It
was in the early days of this budget released that we needed some
understanding and support from our leaders who were delivering harsh news
and now it is very difficult to regain. Presently, government's attempt to
reassure people are falling on deaf ears and are falling on deaf, broken
hearts. It is pretty powerful when you look at that, Madam Speaker.

I
have lots of these emails, and all my colleagues do too. Are they listening
to the people that we're listening to? Because I talk to a lot of these and
I get a lot of emails actually that ministers are emailed and they're cc'ing
me, so I know the ministers are getting these. I respond to every email,
Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: As do I.

MR. PETTEN: I'm glad you do. That's
good to hear. I'm glad you do respond to emails. I hope all you guys do
respond to emails, and ladies, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you all do
because never forget that's why we're all in this Chamber. That's why we're
here. And I've always said that no matter  and I made it clear before, I
don't care what party or stripe, when the people ask you  I've been asked
by the people to represent them and if the people speak loudly enough, I
will go with their wishes.

I'll
use an example of a person  I said in my maiden speech I had a lot of
respect for this person. I highlighted them in maiden speech, a former
Member for Conception Bay South, Bob French. A lot of you probably know Bob.
He has passed away now. I remember going door to door with him when the
education referendum was being held, when Premier Tobin of the day was
holding an education referendum on the denominational school systems.

It
was a very divisive issue and up in my community, there was enough on both
sides of the equation to argue it. But he went door to door and he was asked
what his opinion was. I remember, point blank, we ran into a few irate
constituents. He looked them right in the face; he said I will vote whatever
you want me to vote. If the vote comes out and you want me to vote against
it, I'm voting against it. Regardless of what I believe, I'm elected to
represent you and I will follow your wishes.

I
remember that's 20 years ago now, Mr. Speaker. That was along the way of
learning and I really respected his opinion because he ended up voting, I
think, against what he really felt in his heart and soul, but he went with
the people of his district. It was admirable. I've said before I understand
the dilemma you're all in over there. I do. And I'm not rubbing it in; I'm
not. But I hear from other districts outside of my own and I know more
people than just in my electoral District of CBS. I do know people outside
of that who some of you people represent. They are really frustrated.
They're desperate, but I do understand where you stand. I do. I really do.

I
tell you, it's a decision and it's about choices. This budget is about
choices. Your decision, what you're going to vote on this budget, is about
choices. But just remember, you would not be sitting there without the
people who voted you in and in four years' time, they'll be able to make
choices. I guess that's something you'll have to answer then.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
prior to continuing on with the Budget Speech I just wanted to give notice,
pursuant to Standing Order 11 and further to the Order Paper, 16 and 17, I
would move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 2,
2016.

I
further move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at
10 o'clock p.m. today, Monday, May 2, 2016.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the
hon. the Government House Leader that the House do not adjourn 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It
has moved by the hon. the Government House Leader that the House do not
adjourn at 5:30 today and further that the House do not adjourn at 7 p.m.
today.

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Carried.

The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Stephenville 
Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, while it's certainly a privilege to rise in this House to speak on
any particular topic, it's with great difficulty to speak to this budget
today. In fact, I was quoted on the record this past weekend as saying that
this was a terrible budget. I believe the Member for Mount Pearl North
referenced that earlier this afternoon in Question Period. So be it.

In
fact, I certainly did say it was a terrible budget. It's a bad budget, a
tough budget. There are a number of words you could use to describe it.
Given the state we're in right now, this budget is something where a number
of difficult choices had to be made.

In
order to put into context some of the remarks that I wish to make today, I
wish to let the Members opposite, those listening and some of my colleagues
know the background of which I came from. I've spent the last eight years
working with a non-profit organization. The non-profit organization I worked
with primarily helped individuals who were unemployed seeking retraining,
those experiencing homelessness and housing crisis issues. The particular
clientele were those who had challenges with mental health and mental health
diagnoses.

This
work involved me communicating with a number of government departments on a
daily basis: Advanced Education and Skills, Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing Corporation and so on and so forth. Each day I would advocate for
individuals to receive better services and enhanced services and ensure that
there was a safety net there for them.

As
we listened to this budget debate unfold, one of the messages that the
Members opposite keep raising, in addition to the Third Party as well, is
how we're striking the low income the hardest. Nothing could be further from
the truth when you take a look at some of the measures we put in place. In
fact, no recipient of income support in Newfoundland and Labrador will pay a
levy. That is a fact. No recipient of income support in this province will
pay a levy. I just wanted to say that was important to point out.

One
of the things that's been another constant reminder here  and the Member
for Mount Pearl North said this just the other day  is that the blame game
is a silly game. You continue to hear them say that. I can tell you one
thing, acknowledging blame is one thing, calling this a game is a completely
other ballgame. We're not here playing games; this is real life and this is
a budget. This is a budget that's going to impact every Newfoundlander and
Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FINN: The fact that it's going
to impact every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is not lost on me and it's
certainly not lost on us. I'll remind the Members opposite that this is no
game. In fact, in order for me to explain to them how this is not a game
there are two words I'd like to define, the first word being crisis. A
crisis can be defined as a time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger.
I'm not sure if they truly comprehend the understanding of that word.

The
second word that we're using as well is unprecedented. The definition of
unprecedented is never done or known before. Well, let me tell you, we are
in an unprecedented crisis right now. The Members opposite are saying we
knew we would be here.

Well, I can tell you when our Premier wrote the former premier in September
of this past year and asked for a fiscal update, he did not receive an
answer. In fact, they were forecasting a deficit of around $1.89 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $1.1 billion.

MR. FINN: Hang on now; $1.1 billion
in the fall. We get in and we're told it is $1.89 billion. Then it's $2.4
billion and if we do nothing, it's going to go to $2.7 billion. So when
you're saying the Liberals knew about the financial situation, nothing could
be further from the truth. We were completely misled. There is no doubt
about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FINN: I'm sorry to those
listening at home. I'm being a little heckled right now at the moment.
That's okay. I'll compose myself. I have a number of things I wish to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The
tax measures in this budget bring us back to 2006 and 2007 levels. It's very
sad we have to go back in time now and correct something that Members
opposite had every opportunity to do. People are upset with the Deficit
Reduction Levy. People are upset with the HST increase. So be it; they have
every right to be upset.

A
couple of things I'd like to point out, though. In 2001, the highest earners
in this province were taxed on a personal income level of 18.02 per cent.
That's the highest earners in the province. In 2001, that's 15 years ago.
With this budget, we brought them back to that 18.3 per cent.

Now,
somewhere in between there, the year specifically is 2007, 2008 and 2010,
the Members opposite dropped the highest earners income tax levels to 16.5
per cent in '07, down to 15.5 per cent in '08 and then down to 13.3 per cent
in 2010. The highest earners in our province received just shy of a 5 per
cent tax decrease at a time in which we hit peak oil. Meanwhile, the lowest
earners in our province, their tax levels dropped 1 per cent in '07 and then
remained the same. The lowest earners income tax levels remained the same.
Meanwhile, they dropped the highest earners. So what we're doing right now
in this budget is we've increased about 0.5 per cent on our first income
bracket. We're gone back 3 per cent to the others.

The
other thing is the HST. The Members opposite and the Member for Topsail 
Paradise, the Official Leader of the Opposition saying, well, we ran on the
fact we'd keep the HST. The HST was something they had dropped at a time in
which they had no business in dropping. It's one thing to drop HST 1 per
cent one year. Does anybody notice a 1 per cent drop in one year? The next
year drop 1 per cent again.

Well, to take away that percentage and give everybody a benefit and for us
now to go and say, no, we want that back. Well that's a terrible thing to
do, and that's why people are frustrated. You can't just give someone
something and then take it back.

The
problem in doing that is they knew darn well at the time they were hitting
peak oil production. For any Member opposite to say they had no idea there
was going to be peak oil and no one could predict the price of oil, well I
implore you to look back at some of the media and the context back in
2007-2008 when it was well known there was going to be peak oil. The average
price in 2008 was $148 a barrel.

With
this in mind, knowing we had peak oil, the idea was let's drop HST. Let's
decrease our highest earners income tax levels and let's let it roll. Now,
here we are. So basically what we are doing right now is we are reverting to
those '06-'07 tax levels. Nobody likes to hear that. It's terrible to talk
in billions of dollars but this is the harsh reality we were faced with.

We
didn't want to do this. I didn't want to come into government in my first
year, my first term, someone with a non-profit background, trying to help
our most vulnerable, I did not want to come in and increase taxes I can
promise you that. I don't believe anyone sitting here today wanted to
increase taxes but that was just a reality of a group that was running in an
unsustainable fashion.

No
one could have predicted the price of oil. What's also interesting to note
is in 2014 the Auditor General, Terry Paddon at the time  and I'll quote
what he said just in case anyone wasn't aware. November 2014, the Auditor
General told the Members opposite: We see with the weakening in commodity
prices, in particular oil, that it could have a significant impact on the
forecast deficit for this year Paddon said provincial expenses are up 58
per cent over the last decade .

That
was in 2014. In 2014 the Auditor General warned the Members opposite and
reminded them that in the 10 years they were in power provincial
expenditures were up 58 per cent.

Now,
I don't know about anyone else here, but at a time when your expenditures
are over half of what they would have been 10 years prior, why would you
decrease taxes to the highest earners in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador? Why would you decrease the HST year after year? Where's the plan
in sustaining this? At a time when we were prospering and having money,
there was no rainy day fund.

I'm
proud to have been sitting here next to my colleague for the District of St.
George's  Humber when the first private Member's resolution was introduced
in the House this year and we introduced a legacy fund. What a novel idea, a
legacy fund. Where was that thought? When there was so much time to consider
the income coming in from oil royalties, where was the thought of a legacy
fund? It was nowhere to be seen. In fact, the government expenditures were
26 per cent more per capita than any other province over those 10 years.
They doubled our debt since 2004, and were warned by the Auditor General,
among others and among economists.

Another thing during that time, and this is where I'll applaud the Members
because I'll give credit where credit is due okay. The Member for Ferryland
along with the Member for Topsail  Paradise have said, well, do you know
what? I implore the Members opposite in government right now to name one
thing, name one school we shouldn't have built, name one road we shouldn't
have paved, name one hospital we should have built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FINN: I can honestly tell you
this, I applaud you for your investments. I cannot tell you there's not one
school you shouldn't have built, I certainly can't, but there are a few
things I can tell you, you should have done. They could have done some work
on the Harbour Grace Court. They could have done some work in investing in
looking at a sustainable plan. In any event, there are some things they
could have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: There's one thing that
I'm learning, and that's in Estimates. To those listening at home and to
those watching, I'll explain to you a little bit about what Estimates is.

Essentially, we're sitting here in this House most mornings from 9 until 12,
and then again in the evenings from 6 until 9, at which time the minister of
each department goes line by line through all of the things in their
portfolio. The Members opposite get every opportunity to ask a question.

What
I've commonly seen, because I've attended just about every Estimates
Committee there has been, even the ones I'm not required to attend because
I'm learning line by line how our Cabinet and how our various departments
made some of the decisions they made. These are not ones that affect
everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and these are not tax increases,
okay. These are things that could have easily been done year after year by
the Members opposite.

For
example, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, the Member for Lake
Melville, sat here the other day with his department officials. We're going
line by line and the Members were asking questions. They said, well, you see
last year we budgeted approximately  I'll just throw some figures out there
 $80,000 for Transportation and Communications. That was your budget. Now
you actually ended up spending about $120,000. So this year you're going to
expend about $40,000.

Why
the decrease? How did you get here? How did you drop your expenditures from
$120,000 last year down to $40,000? A typical answer, and the answer from
the Environment and Conservation Minister was quite simple, we're going to
do less helicopter travel this year. We're going to do less travel. We're
not going to go to that conference this year. These are small things and
these things are happening in each and every single department.

Purchased Services, Property, Furnishings  these are the types of
expenditure lines that are going from $50,000 down to $10,000. The Member
for St. John's Centre said we nickelled and dimed departments. Do you know
what? In some cases we certainly did nickel and dime departments. I can't
quite understand why the Members opposite didn't look at doing something
similar when it comes to things like office supplies.

What
is it with this March madness every year? At the end of the year, every
March, every department has all this surplus money leftover and they want to
go buy pens, papers and pads. It's essentially March madness. So what we've
done and what every single department has done is they've taken the time to
go line by line through these items, Mr. Speaker. We found $100 million in
savings through this type of exercise. I don't understand how they had 12
years and they did not take one opportunity to have a look at this. It's
absolutely mind blowing.

When
our Treasury Board did their line-by-line review along the same lines as our
Estimates here, there were some comments made, some comments that were quite
appalling actually. Never before has there been a line-by-line exercise like
the one undertaken this year was the comment made  never before.

So
at a period of time when your oil has hit peak production, you're receiving
the most royalty, you have a surplus, you're decreasing taxes, yet you never
took the time to go line-by-line estimates. Past ministers usually didn't
read line-by-line estimates until they were in the House. I don't know what
they were doing for the rest of the year. Some departments had never even
met with the Finance Minister before. There are agencies, boards and
commissions that had never sat down with the Finance Minister in the past.

When
you look at the amount of things that we looked at some actual savings in, I
don't understand why they didn't do that. I can certainly applaud you for
your investments, but I have no respect for the fact that you did not take
the time to go line by line through departments and look at some serious
savings in areas as simple as communications. Not going to go to that
conference this year, we're going to limit travel.

Some
of the other common questions in Estimates, they're saying look at the
salaries here. One was interesting with the Department of Business, Tourism,
Culture and Rural Development. When we looked at that department there and
they were looking at salaries they said there are a couple of positions
here; there must be. We had budgeted this X amount of dollars, the revised
amount is here and now you're going to spend less. The answers simply are we
have these vacant positions; we're not going to fill them. In Estimates the
Members opposite say oh okay, very good.

What
we're saying is we're willing to work harder and make do with less. Our
attrition plan is very much the same as your attrition plan, except that
we've actualized it in various departments where there are vacancies. That's
where we found significant savings. I still can't understand why you haven't
found savings there yourself.

With
respect to fees  here's another interesting one. We commonly heard that all
these fees  there are some 300 fees and these fees are going to increase.
This is a difficult sentence to say, but there are one or two good fee
increases. There certainly are. The Department of Justice is looking at
increasing the Victim Fine Surcharge. Is that a bad fee increase? I'm not
sure if they ever considered something like that. The Department of
Environment and Conservation 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN:  did a federal,
provincial and territorial scan and looked across the entire country and
they found that multi-national corporations that do things such as mining
exploration, what have you, and they looked at it and they said we're way
behind the times. When you look at the rest of Atlantic Canada, we were
paying significantly less, thousands and thousands of dollars less than any
other areas. So they said my God, some of these fees haven't been increased
since '97; '97-'98 was the last time this fee was increased. Nova Scotia is
over here charging $20,000 more than we are. Why don't we get in line with
the rest of the times?

These are things that the other Members opposite had time to look at in
departments and look at some of these fees and are they practical. We're
also looking at cost recovery on these fees. There are many services that we
provide to these corporations and companies which we're not recovering any
cost for, and other jurisdictions are. These are the types of fee increases
that actually made sense.

I
ask the Members opposite to somewhere look into some of these fee increases
with Environment and Conservation and ask how it impacts everyday
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because, quite frankly, it actually impacts
multi-national corporations that are going to be doing environmental impact
assessments and other things across our great land.

In
addition to the Estimates and addition to the fees, some of the other things
that were mentioned: Why didn't we look at Alberta? The Member for Topsail
and the Leader of the Official Opposition said now Alberta is taking a much
different approach. Now yes, they did, and I would wager to guess that
everybody here knows we are quite different than Alberta in size, income and
particularly population.

Some
of the things that came back from Alberta's budget  well, recently Moody's
has downgraded their credit rating. Quite the opposite of what's happened
here recently when we took our budget measures. I just want to read another
quote and this one is from an economist, the University of Calgary. Ron
Kneebone said: Newfoundland's interpretation of the fall in the oil price
is that oil is not going to come back any time soon. So rather than
accumulate a whole bunch of debt  out of quote now, sounds familiar 
waiting, hoping, praying that oil prices will come back, they decided to
take action to close the deficit. Alberta seems to be deciding to do the
opposite.

We
even have economists that understand that stimulating your economy at one
time is one thing  and I would wager that if we had the amount of income
and the amount of expenditures that Alberta had, we would certainly look at
stimulus as well. We didn't have that opportunity. We certainly didn't have
that opportunity because the Members opposite had 10 years and approximately
$25 billion in oil revenue that they wasted.

If
they had to save one-tenth of that, we would not be here today  one-tenth
of the royalty generated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: I'm going to read another
one, the president and CEO of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. He
said: In Alberta, it is a repeat performance, and governments evidently did
not learn from past cycles. In a few years from now, they may wish to
revisit their government's choices.

And
to its infinite credit, the government has presented a seven-year plan that
eventually looks for Brent crude prices above $70, and that shows a path to
somewhere in the general direction of balance. Finally we're getting to a
position of balance after years of not even considering saving, decreasing
the taxes on our highest income earners and decreasing the HST, the whole
while it wasn't sustainable.

In
addition to some of the other opportunities they had, I just can't help but
shake my head. We're here now looking to future generations. We're looking
to protect the future generations. We're looking to protect my children, my
children's children and so on and so forth. So difficult decisions had to be
made now.

Nobody wanted to be in this position. Not one Member on this side of the
House got here and said this is what we're going to do. This is the plan;
we're going to increase all these taxes and upset everyone in the province
and impact everyone. That wasn't the intention, nor certainly was it the
idea.

MS. MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

MR. FINN: I'll come back to that,
because the Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi just said say that
again. When you talk about low income, I referenced it earlier; no one
receiving Income Support is going to pay a levy fee. Our Seniors' Benefits
has increased. In fact, anybody with $40,000 of a net income will receive a
percentage of our Income Supplement benefit which the Members opposite don't
want to talk about.

When
they talk about our levy, they say anybody less than $20,000 is going to pay
a levy. I implore them to read the document a little further. That's $20,000
taxable income. There's quite a significant difference between $20,000
income and $20,000 taxable income.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FINN: Conceivably you could be
making $31,000, $32,000 gross income and still not have to pay this levy.
Taking things out of context is one thing, but misleading us to get into a
financial situation is a complete other.

We
were going to face a position with a $2.7 billion deficit. How would we
continue with our day-to-day government services? How would we continue with
paving our roads? How would we continue with people going to the hospital?
We cannot continue on a path and just kick the can down the road like the
Members opposite wanted to do year after year. It simply does not make
sense.

Right now, we've made some tough decisions, decisions that I'm not proud of,
decisions that our Finance Minister is admittedly not proud of as well.
These are decisions that have to be made now if we want to have a stronger
future. These are decisions that have to be made now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

It
is certainly a pleasure to rise today and speak to Budget 2016. I had an
opportunity to speak to the main motion. I'm certainly glad to have an
opportunity today to speak to the amendment.

We
just heard from one of the newer Members from the government side of the
House. He referenced some things about the budgetary process. I've had the
opportunity and the privilege over the past number of years to spend some
time in Cabinet and go through the budgetary process. So I assure him it is
extensive and it does go line by line.

There's a tremendous amount of time and detail goes into that process, not
only by Cabinet and the elected officials but by public servants. It is an
exhaustive program we go through in terms of looking at all aspects of
funding within the envelope of a particular department. The operations of
the department, human resources, funding envelopes for various programs
within the department. All of that is assessed and looked at, where we're
going and to look at scanning other jurisdictions and things they're doing
to make sure we have the best data available. If other jurisdictions are
doing things well, we can adopt that and look at it as well. I would say it
is very comprehensive, our time in government doing that and looking through
budgets.

We've heard a lot of discussion on this budget since it was announced in
regard to the approach, the plan, how it is articulated and how it's been
explained to people. I think that's very important. I think all of us
recognize in our province there were challenges.

Last
year, in 2015, when we brought down the budget, at that point we indicated
indeed there were challenges and we needed to make some significant changes
in terms of what we were doing. We looked at taxation and increasing
revenues. We talked about HST. I think there were over 200 fee increases at
that particular time, some new fees.

Then
on the other side of the ledger you have to put a balanced approach. It's
not only about raising revenues through taxation, through fees and income
and those types of things, it's a balanced approach. It's a balanced
approach with being able to lay out for people over a period of time how
you're going to improve the situation, what it's going to take to get to a
balanced budget over a period of time and give people confidence that you
have a clear vision and a clear direction of how you're going to do that.

The
issue with this budget, it doesn't lay that out. That's why people are
frustrated, confused in terms of how we're moving forward this year and
fiscal years to come. People just want to know that; they just want to know.
They have a lot of questions. They just want to know where we're headed and
how we're going to get there.

Since the budget was announced there's a lot of discussion on various
aspects of it. They talked about a levy. A levy was introduced across the
board pretty well. People have to pay that, and that's direct dollars out of
people's pockets.

One
of the things as well last year in Budget 2015 we looked at, we introduced
two new levels in regard to personal income tax for the higher wage earners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS: As part of the
taxation and a balanced approach, we implemented that last year as well;
along with some of the things I said in regard to taxation, fees, laid out
for people a five-year plan so we could let them know what the future holds
for them and how we could get that back to surplus. With that, we laid out
things as well like an infrastructure plan for future years as well.

As
you go through that, in that process, as any government  and the government
on the other side is doing now  that's fluid because sometimes from year to
year, which in that period, you have to make adjustments. That could be
related to unforeseen expenses from revenues when you look at various global
commodities that we deal in and what's happening around the world and
geopolitical things that are happening all affects what's happening in
regard to things like oil, iron ore, gold mines in Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
Speaker is having difficultly hearing the hon. Member. I'd ask all Members
if you have conversations, if you could take them outside.

The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

As I
said, those commodities are affected worldwide by activities; plus, as a
resource-based province, whether it is the fishery, mining, oil and gas, for
example, all of those are affected by happenings around the world. Often,
from time to time, going through an actual fiscal year could significantly
affect the budget and what was projected in regard to revenues.

We
respect that from time to time it has to be readjusted, as you go through
based on activities around the world and what's happening with some of the
key components of our revenue generation in regard to industry and then that
flows over into corporate taxation. As industry slows, often corporate taxes
reflect that. Personal income tax, as it trickles down, we all know that as
industry goes, so goes personal income, wages, people working and all of
that then is interrelated into what flows back to a government at any
particular time in terms of the revenues and what they are generating.

Having said that, when looking at the current government, they came in and
they looked at where they were and the decisions they had to make. There's
some looking back and blaming a prior government in terms of actions you're
taking. Well, when you come in a government, no matter when you come in, the
choices you make are the choices that you're building and looking to the
future and arriving at. So you take responsibility for that. You take
responsibility for your choices. There's always an array of choices you can
make. There's a road you can take. Those choices you make reflect that road
you're going to take.

Whatever that is, whatever those choices are, the type of taxation, all
those variables, whether it's driving the economy, looking at economic
diversification, going to bring in new initiatives, going to look at
innovation, going to look at research and development, all of those
variables are choices that any government makes. You're held accountable for
those choices and so you should. They all reflect into a budget and how
you're going to look in moving the province forward in the next couple of
years.

Last
year at budget time we laid out that there was approximately a little short
of $1.2 billion in regard to a shortfall. As we moved through the year, we
saw things like oil prices reduce, reflective of happenings around the
world. As we moved through August, it was quite clear that the deficit would
be much greater than that.

The
hon. Member suggested earlier that they didn't know. Well, everybody else
knew and we knew we had a $1.2 billion deficit last budget that was
announced. As we went through, all the documentation indicated what the
reduction in our revenues would be based on a barrel of oil, even if it was
reduced by a dollar a barrel of oil, easy calculated on what the overall
reduction would be. That was all available and at the very least you would
have a $1.2 billion plan to deal with the deficit from last year.

We
knew during the year that was growing, mainly due to what was happening and
the reduction in oil prices. Even since the writ last November, when you
look at what's happened and the loss to the province in terms of revenues,
it's almost $400 million. That happens because of oil prices, because of the
reduction in revenue. That's just the reality of what happened around the
world.

Once
you come in, you run on a record. You say here's what we believe are the
fundamental principles or fundamental pillars that we're going to operate
and run a government on. You come in and you're expected to adhere to those
principles and run the government in regard to budgets, in regard to
providing programs and services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's
the key element in terms of any government in terms if you come to power.

To
say you didn't know, well, that's a bit much. It's a stretch. It was all
available. All the information was there. Then it's about when you come in,
you assess where you're to  and fundamentally, it could be ideological in
terms of what your beliefs are  and you lay out a plan ahead. This
government certainly did that. They laid out a plan which, for the most
part, looked at increasing taxes and fees. Significantly on the revenue side
in that regard, but nothing in terms of economic diversification of how
we're going to generate new dollars and new wealth into our economy.

If
you look at the years out, there's very little in terms of factored in for
future revenues from new industry, new activity, economic diversification
that we heard so much about from this government when they ran last fall on
an election campaign. They had the ideas, they had the innovation, they had
the captains of industry, they had all these ideas they were going to bring
to the people of the province once elected and we would start seeing that.

We've seen none of that in this budget, none of the projections in terms of
future years and where they are and how that's going to be developed. I
don't know where that is in the budget. We've heard things like they were
going to sell off assets and have $50 million, for an example, as part of
that in this year's budget in the revenue stream. I asked in the House, the
Minister of Finance where that was. It's not going to be in this budget, but
as far as we can tell it's nowhere to be seen.

That
was another issue in terms of they had a plan for that. Something obviously
as significant as $50 million that would be garnered in this fiscal year;
again, no mention of that. We don't see it. As I said, when you come in and
lay out for people a variety of areas in where you want to go, it's
important that you can lay that out for them.

We
look at things like the HST. Last year we brought in that we needed to raise
extra revenue. We increased the HST from 13 to 15 per cent. Over the whole
year it's about $180 million to $200 million. We know the Leader of the
Opposition at the time then, back at budget time last year, came out
unequivocally, right away said, no, we're not going to do HST. It's a job
killer. We're not going to do it.

He
campaigned he wasn't going to keep the HST. He got elected and then shortly
thereafter said cancel the HST. Then in a budget he brought down, he said
we're bringing it back. The HST is coming back.

What
we did in that period of time, we've lost anywhere from $80 million to $100
million, based on that decision alone in terms of extra revenues. Maybe what
we raised could have been revenues in less of the levy. Some of the services
we've seen cut in the current budget could have been offset by that. That's
the kind of decision making we wonder about, and certainly the people of the
province wonder about, in regard to why the decision was made in that
particular regard.

One
of the other things we've seen with this budget, and any time an economy
starts to slow, is the consumer spending. As we know, the money that people
have in their pockets to spend from our cities and towns to our very small
rural communities, it all trickles down. That drives the economy. The small
businesses throughout our great province, it's so important that people have
the ability to spend.

What
we've seen with this budget is that it continues to take and take so many
dollars out of people's pockets from all demographics. I guess at some point
in the economy you have to get to the point where you reach that threshold
where you're taking so much out that you're slowing the economy.

Even
in the documents from the actual budget, the government even acknowledges
they're slowing GDP based on some of the things they're doing, which is
quite alarming because we need to see our way through the next couple of
years. The way to do that is a balanced approach. That's what we've talked
about, certainly us on this side and I think many around the province have
talked about. We need a balanced approach here. That means we have a slowing
economy based on a lot of the commodity markets and what's happening, but
still a lot of good things are happening here in the province.

There's a bright future in Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to the
resources we have and how the future looks, and the investments we've made
over the past number of years. Certainly in our youth and driving the
ability of families to raise kids here, wanting to stay here. Having an
opportunity through our post-secondary institutions and what we've done and
how we've built them, through Memorial's Grenfell Campus in Corner Brook and
various other post-secondary institutions like the Marine Institute.
Developing the high expertise and educational institutions that not only
reflect domestically our students and young people here but, because of it,
we get people coming really from all over the world to visit these
institutions, to study here.

As
we know, our demographics are not going in the right direction in regard to
population growth. That's all a benefit that we can attract not only our
local students, but certainly those from around the country that come here,
that study, that get integrated into our lifestyle on our way of life here,
like it, want to stay here. That helps the overall population growth that
we're looking at achieving. That's all part of building that infrastructure
and that environment where people come here. It's extremely important to do
that.

With
that, we have to continue to build with the infrastructure, but it's a
balanced approach, as I said. I know this year I think there's a little over
$500 million  I think government mentioned earlier  in regard to
infrastructure spending. I'm sure some of that would be previous projects
that were approved and we're seeing those through completion. They would
have been contract and tendered in various amounts. That would be spent to
continue that infrastructure build and things we need to do.

The
other critical component of any community in any region to continue to grow
is that we have those infrastructure resources available for young families,
middle-class families and seniors. That goes for the full span of schooling,
recreation facilities, hospital facilities. All of those things so people
are happy and secure and feel comfortable living in an environment where
they can, in a reasonable amount of time, access those services.

That's why it's so important, as I said, a balanced approach. We look at
where we are and make sure we have that environment that we can continue to
grow and grow our economy. This budget certainly puts that in somewhat
concern. We're hearing that right around the province in terms of the
approach that's taken, not balanced, not really giving us, I don't think,
the future people expect us to have.

There's been some information in regard to  even so far as the Opposition
is not putting out the right information or we're not talking about it
right. I mean that obligation is on the government to communicate what their
plan and what their vision is and let people know. As I said earlier when I
started, everybody understands there are difficult decisions, difficult
choices, but it is about choices and you're responsible for those choices
you make. Government before, I've certainly been part of, you make tough
choices but you lay it out for people and the people will decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Some of the things
we've done over the past number of years in regard to all activities in the
province, people's take-home pay, standard of living, all those things,
building infrastructure was all part of reinvesting those dollars that we
were able to accrue many through natural resources, through oil and gas, all
of those things that allowed us to grow our communities, our regions and all
parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Other areas that we could have looked and government should have drove and
continued to is the area  I've talked about it before  on equalization. To
be part of the Federation of Canada means at times of very good times in a
provincial jurisdiction, you don't access an equalization fund to help you
deliver services at a reasonable rate. Anytime, for whatever reason, you
have a reduction in revenues, the federal government that has been part of
this federation steps in and through help through the equalization fund,
allows you to provide those services at a reasonable taxation rate.

What
we've seen in the equalization formula there is a component of it called the
stabilization fund which allows when revenues drop below 50 per cent from
one year to another, from resource revenue, there is a bill there to access
some funds. Even over and above that, you look at the past number of years
since we've come off equalization, we've contributed greatly to Canada,
industries and the activities that are here through corporate tax, through
employment, through personal income tax, driving small and large entities
and corporations from around the world and all of our industries.

At
the time when we were back receiving equalization, we oftentimes over a
10-year period would get $1 billion to $1.5 billion from equalization. What
we have lobbied the Premier and the government today to do is to be much
more vocal and much more in an advocate's role in Ottawa in terms of getting
a fair share at this particular time of some help.

We've seen Alberta and Saskatchewan very active in terms of making the case
of the contribution they've made to Canada over the past number of years. At
this particular time, which is really when you go back and look at federally
in Canada what's happened, the drop in oil prices has been dramatic and it's
had significant impact on particular three provinces and Newfoundland and
Labrador.

So
because of that they're making the case that the federal government should
certainly step in, recognizing there's a formula in terms of being
reassessed in the equalization formula, if you will, it has to be three
years out and then I think it is two years for the assessment to be done.
But, having all that aside, the federal government at various times  you
look at Ontario and the automotive industry  have stepped in and helped.
You can do it under the equalization fund or you can do it under something
else. They've done that in the past. Bombardier in Quebec is another good
example where they've stepped in with billions of dollars to assist that
industry. That's fine because that's what being part of Canada is all about.

We
don't seem to want to advocate for that and that's alarming to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If we did, and were successful, you could
certainly offset some of the things that we've seen in this budget that
would carry us through a year or two of rough times. That's important that
as part of Canada we have the ability to access that, to fight for that and
to advocate for it which will see us through.

It's
all about creating an environment in Newfoundland and Labrador where that
economy continues to grow and we're able to provide those goods and services
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Equalization is all about providing
the services at an equal level of taxation. From what we've seen in this
budget, we've gone down a road where everybody knew we had some tough
choices to make, but the choices that have been made are going to hinder the
lifestyle of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of all demographics. It's
going to further hinder a slowing economy in Newfoundland and Labrador as
people are reluctant to spend. There's no vision, there's no direction,
there's no future here in this budget in regard to what the plan ahead is.

We
heard from this group back in the fall. They had a plan, they had a vision,
they had pillars they were going to stand by, but they've all been pushed
aside at this stage. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are extremely
worried. It's time for this government to step up and assess where they're
to in regard to this budget. We're at a very important point in Newfoundland
and Labrador and where we are today.

I
won't be supporting this budget, Mr. Speaker. I encourage everybody in this
House not to do it as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for Placentia West  Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm
certainly glad to have the opportunity to rise today in this hon. House, as
I am always pleased to rise to speak to any piece of this legislation, but
this budget particularly to give my response to it. As many of my colleagues
have already stated, this is not a budget that we are happy about, but it's
a budget that has made tough decisions because of the inaction of the
previous government.

Let's look back, Mr. Speaker, at some of our province's recent history. Our
government has been in power for four months and we're prepared to answer
for every decision that we've made since we took the reins. We're prepared
to accept and acknowledge that we are asking the public to make some
sacrifices, and to live with the reality of a difficult budget. We're not
prepared to accept the blame and the result of the mismanagement of the
previous government. The decisions that were made in the past 12 years by
the PCs, while they were in power, it seems like they aren't even willing to
answer for those.

We
got the crowd opposite, Mr. Speaker, six of seven of them who served in the
PC government. The seventh new one really was in government anyway as a
staffer. So we might as well say all seven were in there, Mr. Speaker. Every
day they come into Question Period and they're deriding us for the decisions
we take today. They're refusing to acknowledge their role in bringing us to
where we are today.

I
think the people of my district and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are well served by seeing the full context of the place we are in today. So
let's just go back over some facts.

In
2003, when the Members opposite took over, Mr. Speaker, the province's
budget deficit stood at $914 million. Just for a quick reference, our net
debt today is $12.6 billion. It took us 66 years to get there since we
joined Confederation. If we did nothing, took no action whatsoever, that
number would double in the next five years.

I
think it's really important for the people at home to take into account the
gravity of that number, how large that number is that in 66 years we've
arrived to the point where we are today. If nothing changes, if no measures
were taken to mitigate the excessive spending the Members opposite put
forward for years and years and years, in the next five years that number
would double.

Adjusted for inflation, the debt in 2003 was more like $14.27 billion.
Government back then surely had a huge problem, facing a tough economic
situation. They faced huge pension liabilities and a huge structural
deficit, and faced mounting debt levels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BROWNE: So, naturally, Mr.
Williams and company came into power trying to take measures that were
necessary to correct the province's course. Interestingly enough, Mr.
Speaker, we see in the news of the weekend, Mr. Williams was out actually
advocating for some of the choices that were made in this past budget,
saying they were the necessary choices. It's interesting that Members
opposite aren't so adept now to follow his words as they were for the 10
years of power that Mr. Williams was in.

They
went to war with labour. They sacrificed a whole pile of their own political
capital at the time to attempt to get the province's finances under control.
Then something happened, Mr. Speaker. The oil started flowing and the prices
started rising. They rose and rose and rose to the point where Danny
Williams and his government at the time paid no heed to the financial
situation. They spent, spent, spent, spent and spent some more, Mr. Speaker.
That is the result and those decisions are the product of where we are
today. They had so much cash coming through, Mr. Speaker, that they didn't
know what to do with it. They just put it out through the door and they
couldn't spend it fast enough.

With
oil royalties and Atlantic Accord payments combined, they had their hands in
some $25 billion, Mr. Speaker. How many doors did I go to, and all the
Members of this Chamber go to last year. The question on people's minds was
what happened to it? Where did the money go? Where did the $25 billion go?
No one seems to know. It's gone, and today we are left with a huge mess to
deal with.

They
blew all the money. Even when prices were high, they posted a surplus budget
only three years. That's the definition of mismanagement in my opinion, Mr.
Speaker. High oil prices gave them a few more surpluses that they didn't
even expect. They weren't planning for those. Only for the price of oil went
up so far, otherwise they'd have even more deficits. Their spending was out
of control, even when oil was at its peak.

They
cut taxes for the rich and implemented all kinds of giveaways and goodies
meant to keep voters on their side. It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, in this
budget it is proposed that the highest income brackets will be going back up
3 per cent to 18.3 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. BROWNE: Mr. Speaker, 18.3 per
cent. The highest income brackets will rise by 3 per cent. The last time
that number was comparable was in 2001 when the Liberals were last in power.

Successively, from that point forward, the former administration kept
reducing them, reducing them and reducing them. In the same time that they
were reducing taxes for the rich, Mr. Speaker, they were flat lining taxes
for the lowest income people. They were doing nothing to stimulate the
economy for those with less money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BROWNE: They continued to lower
taxes for their buddies and the rich people, and right now we are taking
action to correct those changes. They did absolutely nothing to tackle the
financial situation that confronted them at the start of their government.
They tried at the beginning but they failed miserably, Mr. Speaker. They
continued then, a path forward to where we are today to where they have
spent nearly every dollar the province had.

They
thought they won the lottery. They had billions in oil money blowing through
their coffers. They could afford to wait another year, another five years,
another decade to sort out the financial mess, but as long as the oil was
pouring in what did it matter.

Well, we all know what happened, Mr. Speaker. They'll tell you they didn't
see it coming. They didn't see the drop in oil prices coming, as if the
economic history of oil as a commodity had always shown a trend of positive
growth. This crowd wasn't aware that oil is a volatile commodity that's
subject to the whims of global market forces and they weren't qualified to
run this province. After 12 years in power, the people made that conclusion
and ushered them out in favour of strong, fiscal accountability and strong
management.

So
here we are, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important to put some things in
context and I think I've done that now. Here we are today, this is 2016, the
money has been spent, the debt has been increased and the cupboard is bare.
The Members opposite left the cupboard bare when we came into power and they
wouldn't even tell us what the true facts were before the election.

Our
current Premier sent a letter to the former premier September 28 of last
year asking for an updated fiscal statement and we couldn't get any facts.
We went into an election with an understanding that the deficit was at $1.1
billion, only to come in here and find out that number was nearly $2 billion
 not $2 million, $2 billion.

Mr.
Speaker, that number today would be nearly $3 billion. If that's not the
definition of mismanagement, I don't know what is. They left this place in
an awful, awful mess. Now we've begun to clean up. We recognize that the
revenue measures in this budget are not easy.

Mr.
Speaker, since the budget has come down I have made a point to travel
through my district to speak to constituents. I have a very large rural
district, stretching from Marystown on the Burin Peninsula right up to
Goobies and over to Long Harbour and Norman's Cove, Long Cove, edging onto
the Avalon Peninsula. I have a very large district and I've made a point on
the weekends when the House is not in session to go back into my district,
attend as many functions that I can fit into my schedule, as many meetings
that we can get to and talk to the people of my district.

I
know these are difficult choices. They're difficult choices to accept.
They're difficult choices, to think that we had $25 billion worth of oil
royalties in the last decade and where has it gone. Why are we coming back
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador now and saying we all have to be
part of the solution to help get us out of this mess.

We've begun to clean up. We recognize these measures are not easy but the
alternative, Mr. Speaker, allowing debt levels to reach such a point that
interest payments become the largest portion of our budget, that's just not
something that we can accept. I don't think that's something the people of
my district or the people of the province can accept.

Yes,
there will be debate on what measures should or should not have been taken,
but, Mr. Speaker, something had to be done. There are many measures that I
believe the people of the province know that we had to take because of the
mess that was left by the other side, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the debt we
have today that took 66 years to accumulate would have doubled in the next
five years if spending was allowed to continue, and that is not a reality we
could live with.

So
we're more or less now back to square one. We're right back to where the
other crowd started in 2003, and we will succeed where they failed. Our
budget, difficult as it is, is honest and presents a credible and a sensible
plan for returning to surplus and for easing the financial strain on the
Treasury.

This
is not a problem that we got into overnight, Mr. Speaker, and it's not a
problem we're going to get out of overnight. That is why we are taking a
sensible approach to tackling this issue over the long term. Our creditors
and our credit raters recognize this, and so do members of our public
service.

Speaking of the credit rating, Mr. Speaker, I know there's been a lot of
comparison to the Alberta budget. Actually, Dominion downgraded their credit
rating after their budget and our credit raters maintained our rating. So
clearly, the banks are responding positively to our messages.

There is nothing in the budget that is left to chance, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, oil prices could shoot back up to $140 a barrel, and that's
something Members opposite will certainly count on. They would plan a
budget, Mr. Speaker, that counts on the price of oil going up rather than
banking on what it actually is and planning sustainably for that. That would
be very timely for us, as the Hebron project is scheduled to come online in
a year or two.

I'm
very proud to say that in my District of Placentia West  Bellevue we've
been very intricately involved in the Hebron project. The DSM module was
just constructed in Marystown. It finished up at the end of December,
employing some 1,300 people. I actively now in my role continue to work with
the site owner to see what the next steps are for the people and the workers
in Marystown. Of course, that was shipped to Bull Arm, which is also in my
district, where thousands of people commute to every single day creating
economic wealth here in the province. My district is very integral to the
Hebron project.

Our
budget, Mr. Speaker, is designed to assume that we will have to deal with
low commodity prices for the foreseeable future  which is more than we can
say for the Members opposite who continue to bank on oil prices that just
weren't there. Our budget doesn't bury its head in the sand or ignore
problems that we face or hope for the forces of history to turn in our
favour.

I
can tell you, and I think the Member for Mount Pearl North said this last
week and I appreciated the comment. He said, I don't think anyone on either
side of the House enjoys this budget or sitting through this proceeding. I
have to commend the Member for Mount Pearl for that statement. I think he's
right. I don't think anyone is taking pleasure in this. Now don't expect me
to say that too often, but I think he's right on that point. I think no one
takes pleasure in this and we regret that we are in this position, and we
wish the crowd opposite perhaps would take a little more accountability for
the decisions they made.

But
wishes and regrets, Mr. Speaker, are not going to fix this problem. Only
action can fix this problem and that is what this budget begins. It's our
first steps and our first actions taken to correct the province's untenable
financial situation.

As
difficult as this budget is, it does contain some positive measures which
have been totally outweighed in the commentaries from the Opposition and in
the media. I'm going to spend some time helping to inform my constituents
here today who are watching at home, there are some positive measures they
should know about, Mr. Speaker.

For
instance, the budget contains a new Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement which would be a quarterly payment to low-income residents of the
province. This new Income Supplement is intended to take care of these
people  the people who need our help most  and to lessen the tax burden on
them. For a single earner family of two adults, and two children under six,
with a net income of $40,000, they would receive an average annual
supplement of $910 and a quarterly instalment of $227.

In
addition to the Income Supplement, Mr. Speaker, there is also what we're
calling the Seniors' Benefit. It will be paid to qualifying seniors in
addition to the new Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement.

I'll
just give an example. I've had a lot of seniors call me concerned about the
impact of the budget on them. I think it is very important they know the
facts and get the information that will help them.

I
will give you an example of a senior couple making $26,000. They would stand
to gain $250 on the Seniors' Benefit and another $510 from the Income
Supplement. That's a net gain and that is a benefit to seniors in our
province; the very seniors who helped build our province and our communities
into what it is today. Those facts aren't known out there.

I
encourage anyone in my district to reach out to my office and to call us for
any information they want. We have access that we can calculate what it is
they need, in terms of what benefits they have. They can reach my office at
891-5607. It's like an infomercial here today, Mr. Speaker. I certainly
encourage them to do that because I think the more information we can get
out, the less fear that will be out there. I don't think there is any
benefit to anyone in the province to have a whole pile of fear. The facts
will be the facts and we can debate the facts as they are, but to just
promote fear for its own sake, I find extremely problematic.

We
really mean it, Mr. Speaker, when we say that looking after the most
vulnerable in our society was one of the biggest considerations in this
budget. Each revenue measure in this budget was carefully considered with
that in mind.

Another thing with this budget, it brings taxation back to a sustainable,
structurally sound level. Of course, increasing taxes is the last thing we
want to do as a government.

I
believe the Member for Stephenville  Port au Port said it, he just got
here, he spent years working in his career. He came here to make a
difference and the last thing you want to do is come in, in a new
government, and have to raise taxes. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Members
opposite didn't leave us a whole lot of choices. They didn't leave a whole
lot of tools in our toolbox and, unfortunately, we are having to make very
tough decisions.

After 10 years of Tory tax cuts and giveaways, our Treasury has a structural
revenue problem. We have a shortfall. For years the Tories have plugged this
hole with oil money, banking on oil money that oftentimes wasn't there, but
we don't have that luxury anymore. We will not continue to plan based on oil
prices that may or may not rebound.

Even
though the personal income tax levels, Mr. Speaker, are being raised in this
budget, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will still pay less in taxes than
they did in 2006-2007, which was the beginning of the drop in the tax rates
and the tax cuts that clearly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could
not afford in the long term. Another decision made by the previous
government that was unsustainable.

There are also a number of initiatives in the budget that will improve the
lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're still spending $8.48
billion in this budget. Money will still be flowing, Mr. Speaker. I'm very
proud to say that I will be helping communities in my district to access the
funding they quality for, for the enhancement and development of those
communities, which includes $570 million in infrastructure spending. This
means spending infrastructure assets that will benefit people across the
province.

There's almost $64 million in there earmarked for the widening and paving of
the Trans-Labrador Highway, which is something that was long neglected by
the previous government. Whenever I hear about the Trans-Labrador Highway
it's reminiscent of Humber Valley Paving and the fact they didn't do a whole
lot with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. BROWNE: Humber Valley Paving.

There's $9.3 million for the completion of the Placentia lift bridge, which
is just adjacent to my district. The people of my district in the Long
Harbour area, certainly of Chapel Arm and Norman's Cove area would use some
services and fish out of Placentia. This is a very important investment for
that area.

There's $72.7 million allocated for approved multi-year capital works
projects, including municipal capital works for communities across
Newfoundland and Labrador.

There's $88 million allocated for education infrastructure projects and a
further $16 million for repairs and maintenance. These are investments that
will benefit the people in our province now and for more years to come.

Another big area of investment in this budget is the $431 million towards
the pension liabilities for retired and retiring members of the public
service. Obviously, there are a lot of measures contained in this budget,
Mr. Speaker.

I'll
wrap up by restating that we are aware that it's a difficult budget. I
personally am very aware of that, and I am open to talk to any of my
constituents at any time, any place they so choose. Anyone who wants to
reach out to me should email me or send me a message and I will certainly
get back to them in short order. I will explain whatever facts that they
want to.

We
simply can't allow things to continue as they've done for the last dozen
years. We refuse to be in the position of looking back 12 years from now at
this opportunity, at the moment of the start of a new government, and saying
that we could have acted, we should have acted but we didn't act, Mr.
Speaker.

It's
very important for me as a new MHA that I continue to discuss with my
constituents  I know that they've been emailing me and contacting me. I
have been responding to all of them and phoning them back, oftentimes here
until 10:30 at night calling them. I encourage them to continue doing that.
Anyone who wants to reach out to me is free to do so.

Mr.
Speaker, my time is expiring and I look forward to speaking again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, I cherish the opportunity to get up and talk about not only this
budget, but also to clarify to my young colleague for Placentia West 
Bellevue around the process that's been used over the last number of years
and how we got to where we are but how we improved the stake of people in
this province. I'll take him back as we go through it.

He
talked about his district, a very important district. A district I had the
privilege of travelling in and doing some work in, and a lot of good things
have been done in that district and no doubt there will be more in the
future. I need to educate him a little bit around how things changed over
the last number of years. He talks about hard decisions have to be made.
It's not lost on us over here. We've made those hard decisions as an
administration. Even when I was in government in the last number of years, I
was part of the budget process that had to make hard decisions and we know
the impact on people, but we do it in a balanced manner.

If
we go back to when our administration took power back in 2003, but
particularly the 2004-2005 budget, the impact that had on people and the
decisions that had to be made. We knew what we had inherited then and we
knew the choices that had to be made. We knew we had to set a direction and
set a plan, and that we did.

The
Premier of the Day, Premier Williams, and the Cabinet and the caucus, in
open dialogue, sat down and said we're going to have some hard years ahead
of us. How do we do a balanced approach that we minimize the impact on
people? How do we do it so that we don't stifle the economy in this
province? How do we do it so people still have confidence in this province
provincially, nationally and internationally?

How
do we forge working relationships with other jurisdictions and the federal
government, and municipal governments and the corporate world? How do we do
that? How do we do the balance? How do we also try to find a way to work
with our union friends, the people who provide the services to the people of
this province? We had to do that.

You
want to talk about open and transparent, in those days we went to all the
business sectors, we went to the union sector and said guys, here's our
situation. Here are the books. This is open and transparent. Here's what we
want to do. Here's what we need your support on.

Did
we have some strives there? No doubt. We had pushback from the unions, but
at the end of the day they knew we were open. They knew we had a direction.
So did the bonding agencies. That's why they kept us at a sustainable level
so our debt load didn't get higher.

We
worked the union perspective. We wanted to ensure we minimized the impact on
all sectors, particularly the most vulnerable. I remember as a civil
servant. I have to tell my young colleague, I lived through all of this as a
civil servant. I know what it meant in communities that had to take cuts,
but I will tell you this, there was an open dialogue, there was inclusion
and there was discussion around how do we best do this. How do we get out of
this hole we're in? There's the difference.

There's a difference between administration of that day and the
administration I see of this day. We sat down with people and we listened.
People say you can't lead if you don't listen. I guarantee you there's no
listening going on in that side of the House and that's evident.

On
this side of the House that was done for years. That's why we got to a point
where we generated revenue, where we encouraged businesses to come here,
where we got the best return on our capital assets, why we had the best
royalty regimes in Canada. We managed to negotiate it. We didn't give away
stuff. We didn't sell the shop and, particularly, we made sure we had a plan
and we had a plan in place. So that's where we went from.

We
talked all around where we wanted to go. That's what we did. He talks about
the goodies and giveaways. There's no doubt the young hon. Member has seen
the benefits of those so-called goodies and giveaways in his own district. I
just mentioned some of them down there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL: Your own lift bridge and
stuff that's gone on there, the roads, the schools, the recreational
facilities down in your district. Ask your citizens. The investments we made
in the shipyard over the years.

Don't forget it was this administration that had a ferry replacement
strategy. It's this administration who also partnered with them. It was this
administration who wanted to partner with Kiewit to go on a larger scale. So
we invest in all parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the
young Member's district, but we did that across.

He
talks about $25 billion. Yes, we spent $25 billion. I can tell you exactly
where all the $25 billion went. Let's talk about the fact that we had a
plan. Because we had a plan, we elevated ourselves to a have province. When
you get to an elevation of a have province, you lose your equalization. So
when you lose that, that's obviously revenues that you had coming in your
revenue stream that went out for expenditures, went out for programs, went
out for investment for capital works. That was gone.

That
equated to $10 billion. So if you've got $25 billion here, and somebody who
was giving you $10 billion says no, I want my ten back, well, there's $10
billion that you still got to put into program expenditures and
infrastructure that you had budgeted for. So that's where $10 billion went.

What
that gave us was an opportunity to still invest in proper infrastructure,
but it gave us some independence. We were carrying our own weight here now.
We were own citizens. Our own people felt proud. We didn't have to take the
crumbs from anybody. We could go in with corporate companies around the
world and negotiate the best things for the people of this province, and we
did that. Very evident if you see the corporations that came here under our
rules and regulations, if you see the royalty regimes we got under the oil
industry, if you see how we moved our seismic investments, the aerospace
industry, all these are things we did because we moved with a plan. That
plan engaged, no doubt, and had to make some harsh decisions for the first
number of years.

I do
remember how we looked at making sure that the balance was here so that we
didn't stop things; we didn't cancel stuff. We didn't ensure that offices
and services weren't provided. We may have had to scale back how; we may
have had to find a more creative way of doing it.

I
remember one of the programs and services I was responsible at the time as a
manager of youth services was the Community Youth Networks. At the time we
had 19 Community Youth Networks. I remember the discussion and having this
actually with the premier of the day, being called in about what decision do
we make. Do we cut certain sites because there were X number of dollars had
to be realized, or do we find a creative way of doing it? Do you know what
we did? We sat down with all of these sites; we had an open discussion. They
came up with a plan they presented to government, and the plan meant they
could all take small cuts in certain ways. They could rearrange how they
could provide their service. They could find a better way to partner with
existing programs and services within government, a more efficient way,
streamlining what we had to do.

Mr.
Speaker, I'm glad to say not only did the 19 survive, but only a few years
down the road because the government had the foresight to see the investment
there was a 3-1 return. These agencies, ran by the volunteer sector,
supported by government of the day, could generate money because it could
leverage from other avenues  federal and municipal partners, their own
corporate world, their own ways of being able to provide that.

So
we went then, in only a few short years after we had to make some harsh
decisions, without cutting the program totally, cutting it that it was no
longer viable and couldn't exist in the community. That was about ensuring
those communities, particularly, if you look where the Community Youth
Networks are, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The hon. young Member across,
he knows, there are CYNs in his district too who survived because of that. I
suspect after this one they may not survive, and that's my fear.

The
thing is it's about a balance here. It's about making the right investments
so that when you do have hard times, like you have here, you have an ability
to provide the services, but you also have an opportunity to grow after the
fact, after the dust settles. After you get your fiscal house in order and
you've a plan, then you know you're going to be able to provide the services
for people.

We
were pleased, at the end of the day, to be able to expand the programs, the
38 CYNs, to ensure that coastal areas in Labrador  a very important place 
had those programs and services. It would have been very easy to cut one or
two of those sites because of the geographic locations, because of the
additional costs relevant to operating a site up there and offering
programs, but that wasn't fair. It wasn't the right thing to do and it
wouldn't have sustained the services people needed in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador.

That
was our plan. It had fiscal restraints to it. It had some challenges, no
doubt about it, but we managed to do that because that's a balance and a
plan to where we're going.

Want
to talk about our $25 billion? Let's talk about the $6 billion we put in
infrastructure. We inherited some very harsh situations when it came to
infrastructure. Our school system  mould constantly, leaks in roofs, no
gymnasiums in schools, parking lots that you couldn't get a car into,
libraries that didn't exist, infrastructure needs within those facilities
itself. We invested in that. We continued to build schools. We continued to
ensure the necessities, particularly for education and our most vulnerable
young people, were provided. We wanted to ensure teachers could take pride
in where they were teaching because they had the proper technology uses. We
had all these things put in place. We spread it around.

If
you look at our infrastructure just in schools alone, we made sure that some
of our rural communities were taken care of. Labrador was one of the big
benefactors of all that because we invested. They needed it. It was the
right thing to do. We made right decisions and gave it back to the people
because we listened to where the people were coming from, what they
identified as their issues and what was going to drive the economy down the
road. We did it. It made sense. We invested in road infrastructure.

We
talked about the Labrador investments. That was something that was started
with this administration and partnered with the federal government to ensure
we did it; 652 kilometres of paved road, another 80 kilometres ready to go
in contracts. We invested because we saw the benefits. We saw the economic
benefits of the people of this province. We didn't divide between Labrador
and the Island part of it. When there was a need to be done, monies were
transferred in certain areas and we prioritized it. We had some vision there
to see where we were going with it.

The
poverty reduction  we talk about now the levy won't apply to certain people
at a certain income, but I'll get to a point where I'll read off  that's
smoke and mirrors because in one pocket you're giving $100 but you're taking
$500. All these other fees and services people are going to pay for; the
same people who come from low income are the same people  if they're
fortunate enough to have a car  who are going to have to pay insurance on
cars. Their gas is going up. They're going to have to pay other services now
 their home insurance. All these other services and fees just because they
have a low income doesn't get wiped off on all the other areas that you
managed to pick people's pockets.

Because you give $100 on one side, you take it back on the other side. It
doesn't work that way, and people see that. That's why there is so much
uproar now. People understand the difference. You can put all your monitors
and you can put your calculator tool online, people know the difference and
that will be totally exposed.

Let's talk about tax reductions. Sure, we gave taxes back to every category
because we see the benefit there of stimulating the economy, giving people
an opportunity to reinvest. Those who had a bit more money managed to save
more money. If you see the new businesses that were created here, you see
what people invested in, it all went in a cycle because it guaranteed that
we would still get monies and generate revenues back in our tax. Our tax
revenues went up when we started taxing people less because people were
spending more and they were putting it back into the economy.

They
were generating a sense of pride and a better infrastructure from their own
perspective without looking for government to be able to do that. That had a
major impact on how we moved this province forward. Today we're still
reaping those benefits because companies still have faith in what we're
doing here. They already have their own infrastructure and some of them, no
matter the hardships that's going to be done by this budget here, they'll be
able to ride it out because of some of the breaks that we gave them over
time, how they reinvested it and the supports they got.

The
business community are not going to sit down and go away. They're very
innovative and very creative. They know that the benefits that they had in
the past will now be able to sustain them in the future.

Let's talk about the debt reduction. I mean, people forget about this. We
were in real serious trouble with our debt loads at the time when our
revenue being generated was minimal. We reduced it by $3.6 billion, debt
reduction. Don't forget we had unfunded liabilities worth billions of
dollars to the point where we were close to bankruptcy when it came to
funding those pensions. That if a number of people left at any given time,
this province would have been in real trouble and our bond rating would have
very effectively taken a downgrade. That would have then obviously caused
more hardship on people here because if your debt load goes up, your bonding
goes down, what you have to pay in interest goes up again and got to come
out of some existing program.

The
big one here: tuition and student aid. I mean, nobody can argue the fact of
what was done over the last decade to improve access to education, or
particularly affordability when it came to our students. There is not one
person who has gone through the students' unions who wouldn't argue the fact
that we moved generations ahead. We gave everybody an opportunity to be
engaged in affordable education.

We
did it by listening to the students' unions. I was fortune enough to have a
multitude of meetings with the students' union in my previous job and could
see their vision. It was them that drove where the money was spent. It is
great to be a bureaucrat, you think you have all the solutions, but your
solutions are only as good as the information people are giving you. The
people giving us the information where the front liners, the people who were
going to reap the benefits, who understood the best way to invest it, and
the people who are now leading our province.

So
that was a great investment. To this day, the students' union I met with
last week  the Canadian Federation of Students union, who again attest the
fact we were on the right path. Everything we had done was moving our
education system forward. What they're seeing now is moving us back two
generations. That's not acceptable. They won't accept it; the people of this
province won't accept it.

Let's talk about public service and employees. For years public servants
went without wage increases. They went working in less than adequate
environments, old buildings, dilapidated; not having access to upgraded
training, not having access to proper uses of technology. We invested our
money there. We invested in bringing people up to a proper wage level to
ensure that we could attract and retain the people we have here.

Only
this morning in Estimates, talking to the Minister of Child, Youth and
Family Services and the challenges they have with 12 per cent of social work
positions not being able to be filled at this point, to retain people, being
able to attract them here. So we invested  because we, right now, offer a
fairly good salary for a social worker and we offer them a lot of extra
supports. That's a testament to where their program has gone and what that
department offers to people.

You
need to be able to have a proper financial ability to give incentives to
people. Some of the programs that were funded over the years through these
things to keep social workers here, to keep our professionals here, to
ensure that our teachers didn't mind going to rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, that our social workers went there, our medical students went
there  all the people we train, no matter what skill set they were trained
for, could go and find a place to be employed, but particularly offer
service to people all over this province. That it wasn't just about the
urban centres or the Northeast Avalon that was booming; it was also that
everybody else had access to these types of services.

The
business industry and innovation  hundreds of millions of dollars we
invested, we partnered with and we made double that back, triple in some
cases. What we ended up starting to do here was move the economy forward and
make sure we have some sustainability. Even with the decisions being made by
this administration right now in this budget the business community is still
in a good place because we've invested. We worked with them around
technology; we worked with them around innovative approaches to things. We
put mechanisms and support mechanisms in place that would be something of
benefit for them.

There's no doubt they'll play a major role in ensuring
we get through this major issue right now. There's no doubt  as you can see
from the feedback that's been coming around these parts of the province 
they have a real problem with this budget also. They have a real problem
that it's going to stifle this economy; it's going to slow down their
ability to move things forward. Again, another example of how it's going to
put us behind.

Let's talk about the Northern Strategic Plan, $5.5 billion. We invested $5.5
billion in Labrador through the Northern Strategic Plan and related
initiatives. It's major, and rightfully so. It's a great part of our
province, a great economic driver. It needed a big boost in infrastructure,
it needed a big boost in investment and we did it. We saw the vision because
we saw this province as one and a whole, all working together, all
benefitting.

When
one is booming, we all boom from it. If one particular region needs
additional investment, we do it. That's what it's about. That's where we
went with it. We saw our infrastructure and why now Labrador has a great
ability to ride out where we are when it comes to natural resources and the
price being down until it comes back again; through tourism because what we
invested in our road networks.

What
we're investing in our infrastructure in broadband and high-speed Internet.
What we've done in our investment in recreation facilities. What we've done
with the private sector in some of the other attractions in places in
Labrador. What we've done around our tourism and our cultural thing in
promoting who we are and our culture and what it means as a draw for people.

So
we've done an amazing job out of that $25 billion to ensure that we had
stability. We had a mechanism there to be able to move things forward. We
had pillars of strength, pillars so that when we run into a non-plan and we
run into no vision, that we'll survive, that there's enough structure there
to be able to do that. We're guaranteeing to be able to do these things.

I
want to go back to when we talk about money coming out of people's pockets
or the good things in this budget. Some people think there is. I can't find
any good. You can't tell me it's a good thing that you're giving people more
money because they're in a low income, but you're taking twice as much back
from them another way. That's not a good investment. That's not bringing
them up to equal par. That's not where we were moving with our Poverty
Reduction Strategy.

I
think it's time to be honest with people here and tell them at the end of
the day. There are groups here that are really going to have to take the
brunt of what's going on with this budget. It's not good. It's not
acceptable. You can see by the outrage from the people of this province that
they're not going to accept it.

You
see what's happening in our education system. It's only starting now, about
blending classrooms, teacher cutbacks, libraries being cut. Now we're
talking busing changes. We're talking school days are going to be totally
different. Parents are not going to be able to plan any type of structure
about who picks up the kid. We're going to even question then all the issues
around safety in our bus areas. We're going to have a real problem when it
comes to sustaining where we were, but particularly, being able to make sure
that the next generation of this province has a better life and better
access to education, health care and remembering their own culture.

Mr.
Speaker, with that, I'll sit down now. There's no doubt I'll have many more
opportunities to get up and explain to my colleagues on the other side of
where we are, why this is a bad budget, why people shouldn't vote for this
budget and why we need to move forward on a new approach.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the
Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

Thank you very much for an opportunity to speak on Budget 2016. I appreciate
not only the comments from this side of the floor but as well the comments
from our hon. Members opposite.

It's
been an interesting debate. Many perspectives have been offered. I followed
very intently the viewpoints, the thoughts, the perspectives of my
colleague, the critic for Advanced Education and Skills, and some of the
things he was saying about, sort of making sure that those of the next
generation are protected by spending now on programs.

Mr.
Speaker, I think really if you're going to get to the nub of this particular
debate, that's the point that has been left out  the next generation. Some
of us will have a discussion about the bonds, the debt and whether or not we
can actually afford to go to the market and attract debt. That's an
important relevant point. Some will want to talk about whether or not we'll
be able to afford the interest rates on the debt we're able to acquire,
which is a very, very important point, but the one element of this equation
which has not been factored or considered is whether or not the spending and
the debt load that we impose as an inheritance on our youth, the generation
of tomorrow, whether or not they'll be able to afford it and whether or not
they want it.

Mr.
Speaker, we can talk a little bit about where the debt has gone. We can
recall when Newfoundland and Labrador  Newfoundland as it was known then 
joined Confederation in 1949, over the course of then and now, 66 years, we
as a province slowly but deliberately built a network of roads and
transportation systems. We built community infrastructure. We built
hospitals. We built a network of schools. We built a mosaic of services.
Over the course of 66 years as a province, a proud member of Confederation,
we built up our province to a place much greater than what it was before. We
did it as a member of confederation.

When
we reflect back on those 66 years, building the ribbon of highways, the
network of schools, the mosaic of services  everything that was important
for us to be able to provide services for our people  the total net debt
that was held by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through its
government was approximately $12.6 billion. After 66 years of growth, our
total accumulated debt was $12.6 billion  66 years.

Then
we find ourselves now at this moment in our history where we're debating on
whether or not  first off, whether or not we can actually find bankers to
provide us with loans for debt, and whether or not we can afford to pay the
debt. Because as we've already heard, the interest payments alone right now
at $12.6 billion in accumulated debt is equivalent, if not greater, to the
entire cost of our education system.

So
can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, after 66 years of confederation with $12.6
billion in debt, in the next six years, if we fail to do anything, if we
just simply say the status quo is good, we are not required to act, let's
just keep enjoying the path, the trajectory we're going on, it is not
important for us to actually be stewards of the future, let's just keep
going the way we're going, we'll have amassed a $27.5 billion debt in six
years. Not in 66 years  in six years we will have doubled our provincial
debt. Then we have to consider, how will we pay for the interest payments
alone on that debt?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the one stakeholder, the one group of people that have
not been factored into this debate whatsoever is not this generation but the
next one; the people who will be asked to pay the debt. We can sit here and
we can say: well, you know, we've done this, we've spent money here because
it was very important. Do you know what? Those programs are important, but
if we fail to make the queue, the direction, the link between what we can
afford and what we need then we're going to end up in this situation we now
find ourselves in where we have a massive structural debt, because we are
now spending billions more than we're able to take in. Because despite the
warnings, despite the rumblings from private sector economists, public
sector economists, by auditors general, by numerous learned people who said
we have to take caution not to outstrip our spending with our ability to
draw revenue. That was irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, times are good. Let's forget
all about the principles of reasonable, responsible governance. Let's forget
all about that. Let's just keep going.

Mr.
Speaker, if there's one lesson that I learned over the weekend, it came from
a group of 18 and 19 and 20 year olds who, after a group gathering of people
who wanted to talk about the budget and wanted to do so in a very loud and
assertive voice, came to me afterwards and they said: Mr. Byrne  Gerry,
would you mind telling us how you're going to pay for this bill because
you're going to ask me to pay for this bill?

Mr.
Speaker, what they said in no uncertain terms is stop kicking the can down
the road, stop kicking us and making us pay for what you want. And that was
the voices of young people in this province who said we have to be more
responsible. Young people came forward and they said you have no track
record on the environment. Your generation has no track record on
maintaining a solid fiscal, stable budgetary environment. You have no track
record on making sure that your generation doesn't send the bill to my
generation. That's what they said.

I
thought back for a second and I said they have a very, very solid point to
make. So, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to interject another voice into this
discussion let's have a little more debate, a little more of that voice from
young people. Because if we were to simply take $12.6 billion in debt and
transfer it into $27.5 billion in debt, who will pay the price? It will be
our young people and they don't want to pay our bills any more, and nor
should they.

So
when we get into the point where we ask ourselves can we generate more
revenue, can we make programs which are more efficient and more effective,
they say to us, and they say to Members opposite, they say it to their
parents, they say it to their grandparents, they say it to anyone that will
listen to them: Please, you are now the stewards of the public purse; you
are the holders of the decision making. Make sure that I am factored into
this decision-making process so that when I am 30 years old or 35 years old
and I have children that I'm not just going to have to face the reality that
you failed to act. What you decided to do, our generation, kick it to the
kids  kick it to the kids. That's really what this debate is all about
right now. It's just whether or not we should just simply kick it back to
the kids to pay. That's not a very reasonable or responsible position to
take.

We
can wax and we can talk about numbers, we can talk about how we have to be
very careful about the debt and bond rating agencies and we have to be very,
very careful about the amount of interest that we pay on all of those
numbers and all of that information is more than relevant  it is more than
relevant. Any reasonable person would know that if you're constantly
outstripping your spending with your revenue, and you have a structural
deficit like Brian Mulroney once brought us, sooner or later someone is
going to have to pay the piper.

Mr.
Speaker, the question for us all to answer is: Is it us or is it going to be
our kids and our grandkids? When you have a $27.5 billion debt, a population
of 500,000 souls, you're simply kicking it to the kids. The interest payment
alone on that kind of a debt is so insurmountable; first off, it's
questionable that we'd ever, ever be able to get that kind of debt. It's
questionable  it's not questionable, it's a certainty that we'd never be
able to pay the interest on that debt.

One
thing is abundantly clear; it will be the kids that pay the debt over a
course of multiple generations. Sixty-six years we, as a province, built up
our services with a total cost, total accumulated debt load of $12.6
billion. In six years what we're suggesting now, according to the Members
opposite, is kick the can down the road, forget about it; whistle past, hope
that it's not really going to be a problem; never really analyze that, just
simply borrow, borrow and borrow. Guess what? It won't be a problem because
it won't be my problem. It'll be the kid's problem.

Mr.
Speaker, that's just not responsible. It's not acceptable and, quite
frankly, it's beneath us to just simply say this can be a problem that the
next generation can inherit.

Now,
we on this side understand the challenges ahead of us. We're not going to
soft sell it. We're not going to try to pretend it's anything less than it
is. We're not going to create more than what it is, but we going to tell
people the truth.

Just
this weekend, I met with a 72-year-old veteran and his spouse, his wife. He
said to me: You're going to cost me $3,000 in extra taxes and my wife is
going to pay almost as much as that. I said to him: Sir, if you don't mind,
if you feel comfortable, if you'd like to walk me through your circumstance,
I can tell you exactly what will be and will not be. No, no, no, I know; I
heard from Members of the Opposition that this is the way it's going to be.
You're going to charge $3,000 to me and my spouse just as much  $6,000 for
an average family. That's what I heard. So I walked him through. I said: Do
you mind? Give me your information and I'll see what is the truth.

Well, he provided the information and it became abundantly clear within a
matter of minutes. Once the time was taken to explain the details of the
plan, he looked at me and he said: I never understood. I simply just
understood what I was told from people who were not necessarily telling me
the truth.

What
I came to understand is his actual new income level would be substantially
more than what it was last year. As a result of the increased Seniors'
Benefit, he was under the assumption he would have to pay the levy. The levy
would be a huge expense. He is not subject to the levy. He is exempt from
the levy based on his income. In fact, when I said to him every quarter,
Sir, you'll have an Income Supplement, all things factored in, of
approximately $455, every quarter. He looked at me and said: That's more
than what I got before. I said: Well, Sir, if I can be of any service to you
again, please call on me any time, but those are the facts.

He
looked at me with very, very disturbed and anxious eyes because he had not
slept for about three to four days with any reasonable rest because he was
absolutely convinced that his tax bill was going up well beyond what it
actually would. In fact, it went down.

That's a voice that deserves to be heard. Because when a senior citizen, a
man who served the country, actually is made to believe through wrong
information that may be offered for a perspective, that may not be
necessarily in his best interest 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:  or maybe good
intentioned, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, I won't judge that, but I will say
to you that this individual, this man was brought to light that what was
told to him was incorrect. He sat back in his chair with a sigh of relief
and said now I know the difference.

Do
you know something? We will do that on this side. We will go table to table,
chair to chair, coffee shop to coffee shop, whatever it takes, to make sure
the truth is being told. Because there are a lot of people who want to
spread that kind of misinformation.

One
piece of information that is already spread, that is unavoidable to the
Members of the Opposition, is that young people in this province are already
saying  because the debate will take a certain direction after a while, Mr.
Speaker. The debate will move in a certain way. It will collapse on its own
weight to a certain degree because young people in this province are already
looking at the numbers because they have access to everything that's
available through the Internet and other things. They're looking at it and
saying $27.5 billion in debt, nobody is saying my name. Nobody is saying
what I want. Nobody is speaking my fears. Nobody is speaking for me, except,
Mr. Speaker, this government right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Because we are concerned
about where our young are going and we know that if their only inheritance
is a $27.5 billion debt, everyone knows where this is going. Everyone knows
who's going to have to pay that. So simply to say 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:  deficits be damned, we
can do that. Just chalk it up, chalk it up, chalk it up, kick it to the
kids, kick to the kids, kick it to the kids. They'll pay the bill. Do you
know something? That, Mr. Speaker, is not responsible.

We
will have a certain element of deficit spending, there's no doubt about
that. There will be certain elements of program efficiencies that we'll have
to create while we raise a certain amount of revenue. Will we be able to say
that we'll be able to maintain all the debt load of the last 66 years of
Confederation? No, we will not  but we'll be balanced in the approach.

We'll try to understand what the needs are of this generation. We'll try to
understand the needs of the next generation and we'll build a balanced
approach so that we do not have to encumber our young people with a debt
load that is totally unsustainable, that they will not be able to surrender
to, that they will not be able to pay, that they will be stuck with for the
rest of their days.

Do
you know something, Mr. Speaker? Isn't it time we started to do that when it
came to the environment, when it came to social justice, when it comes to
our fiscal realities of this province? Isn't it time that we take a lens and
look? Are we prepared to take the 16-year olds of today, the 17-year olds of
today who will be 30-years old in the not too distant future, and say to
them, the debt is yours? We haven't got a problem with giving you this,
because this has always been the way.

Well, that's what this is all about. That's what this action is all about.
That's what the government is focused on and that's what we're trying. We're
providing a balanced approach, raising revenues  not to the extent that
some would ask us to do, because, of course, there are forces, there are
stakeholders that would say raise taxes so that we cannot have any impact on
public services.

Then
there's some who say just cut public services without any exception, without
any consideration of raised revenue. But there's a balanced approach being
offered by the government which has one key focus in mind each and every day
we sit in this Chamber or talk in coffee shops, or at kitchen tables
everywhere in this province. That focus is let's try to create stability out
of instability. Let's try to create a future for our children. What we will
not do, Mr. Speaker, is just as the Opposition is asking for right now, we
will not just simply kick it back to the kids for them to pay. That's what
this program is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Government House Leader, I remind all hon.
Members it's against our Standing Orders to refer to a Member by name. It's
the first time I've had to rule on a Member referring to oneself by name,
but I think the Standing Orders still apply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

With
the consent of my colleagues, I would suggest we perhaps take a break for
supper now and return at 7 p.m.

Prior to doing that, as I've done every day, I just want to advise that
Estimates will be held in this House tomorrow at 9 a.m. for Labour Relations
under the Social Services Committee. On Wednesday, May 4, Transportation and
Works will be held in the evening at 5:30 p.m.

On
that note, we can adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: This hon. House stands
adjourned until 7 o'clock this evening.

May
2, 2016HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGSVol. XLVIII No. 20A

The
House resumed sitting at 7 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!

The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.

In life,
there is very little control. No matter how much we pay for that ultra-control
hair gel, we have no control. The only control we really do have is how we
respond to events in our lives. In the highlights of the Alberta budget, the
government starts with, Alberta cannot control the international price of oil,
but we can shape our response to this market volatility.

Madam
Speaker 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know
we've had a long day already but the Speaker is having trouble hearing the hon.
Member. I ask Members for their co-operation for the next couple of hours.

Thank
you.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.

Madam
Speaker, that is what budgets are all about, an assessment, a response, and a
whole lot of choices and then a plan. Hopefully, that is all based on a certain
set of solid values. What you ultimately believe is the role of government and
how best to fulfil the social contract government has with its people.

Now,
since April 14 we have heard people all over our fine Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador in surprise, disbelief and anger, bemoan the fact that this
government has broken its social contract with the people. The Liberals made
very clear promises to the people during election time, no job cuts, no HST
raise and a promise of a plan for diversification, and the people believed them.
Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they believe them?

The
litany of promises was echoed throughout the province by the new Premier, by the
current Cabinet Members and all the MHAs. Why wouldn't people believe them? Why
wouldn't they?

Here we
are 2½ weeks since government has delivered its budget, a document that reflects
their assessments, their plan, and ultimately their values and how they see
their social contract with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is full
of job cuts, an HST raise and no plan for diversification.

Madam
Speaker, we all know the dire fiscal situation the province faces right now with
both a debt of almost $15 billion and a current deficit of $1.8 billion on a
budget of $8.4 billion. We all know. We've heard it time and time again. We knew
the situation before the election, and this present government, through the
Premier and the Minister of Finance, have been echoing it throughout the
province. We've heard it time and time and time again.

We have
a tough budget, they say, and these are tough times. It is unprecedented. We are
so sad and so sorry to deliver this budget. We've heard it again and again and
again. I believe these words are echoing off the walls and the ceiling of this
Chamber.

The
minister continued to tell us how she went through the process line by line to
find savings. I was astounded, because, Madam Speaker, that is what accountants
or comptrollers do. I would think the role of government is to see the big
picture, to design a plan to strengthen our people and our economy, to design a
plan so we are not so dependent solely on oil; therefore, making us less
vulnerable to this market volatility and to invest in our greatest resource, our
people. To invest by ensuring we provide the best opportunities, by providing
the best possible education, preventative health care, and ongoing health care,
ensuring that we have jobs for everyone, strengthening our infrastructure, and
protecting the public services that families count on. We got the opposite.

Cuts of
over $200 million in infrastructure spending, closures of schools and chipping
away at our education system with doubling up of grades and reducing teaching
positions. Cutting recreational grants to low-income families. Cutting public
sector jobs and causing the loss of many other jobs as a consequence. Closing
libraries  Madam Speaker, yes, closing libraries and chipping away at our
public resources.

After
weakening our social infrastructure, government employed their P3 strategy of
picking people's pockets. The raise in HST, increase in numerous fees, plus an
additional 50 new fees  new fees created. Not only the increase of existing
fees, but actually introducing 50 new fees. Putting tax on household and vehicle
insurance, increase our gas by 16.5 cents a litre  which really will amount to
18 cents once you add on the increase in HST. Cancellation of the Adult Dental
Program and over-the-counter drug program. Closures of courts and other public
service offices, and the resulting job losses in rural communities.

Then
there is the levy. Government keeps bragging about all the public engagement and
consultation it did with people across the province. That's very interesting to
hear, Madam Speaker, how government speaks so highly of all that pre-budget
consultation they did. It was the epitome of public engagement. Everybody had a
chance to be heard, either face to face at a public meeting  public sector
workers had a chance to have input into government, people could phone in their
ideas, mail in their ideas, email in their ideas. So everyone was invited to
give their ideas on how to get the debt and the deficit under control.

Although, all they asked people was, what would you cut? Not what is important,
not what do we need to be able to move forward, and not what do we need to
strengthen our people and our economy; but, after all this consultation, no
matter how much I searched, I could not find anyone suggesting this regressive,
inane, unfair, draconian levy. I did not see it in any of the documents. I did
not see it online. I did not hear it in any of the meetings I attended. I don't
know where it came from. After all that consultation and engagement, I don't
know where it came from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. Thank you very much. I'm finding it very hard to hear myself with the
Minister of Service NL, but thank you for the protection.

On what
values did this government base their budget? Rather than strengthen our economy
and our people, government has presented a budget with only a plan to squeeze
the life out of people. So on what values did they really base this plan?
Because this plan has to be based on some set of values, or maybe it's not. It's
hard to tell.

These
plans, these measures that government has undertaken actually impoverish our
people. Those who benefited the least from our prosperity, in fact, bear a
heavier burden in this budget. So on what values did they base this? This budget
demands too much from those with little or those with nothing. They carry the
biggest burden.

Now the
minister may flail and rant about her Income Supplement, but we've already seen
that it really doesn't help once you factor in the levy, the extra fees, the
sales taxes, et cetera. It really doesn't cover  everybody, for the most part,
are in a negative position.

What
should government have done? Alberta  and we all know that Alberta is going
through a hard time themselves, and not to the same degree as Newfoundland and
Labrador, we know that  has lost 60,000 jobs, well-paying jobs, really good
jobs in the oil industry. They've lost 60,000 jobs in a very short period of
time and they have a $10 billion deficit, but we know they also don't carry the
same level of debt that we do in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that. So
it's not exactly comparing apples to apples, but let's take a look at what
they've done in their approach to the economic and fiscal situation they are
facing.

Premier
Rachel Notley said, We're going to protect our core public services,
understanding the key role they play in supporting Albertans and building our
future.

We're
going to invest in our economy, to create jobs and to diversify our economy.

And
we're going to manage public finances prudently and responsibly  without
panicked measures that just make things worse.

That's
what we would all hope for. That's what we would hope for our Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to manage public finances prudently 
without panicked measures that just make things worse.

So what
could we have done? What could we have done in Newfoundland and Labrador? What
should we have done? Well, we could do things a little differently and this is
what we would have done a little bit differently, Madam Speaker. We would have
built a budget based on values and principles. We absolutely wouldn't put
everything on the table because not everything should be on the table.

We would
build a budget around clearly articulated values and we would articulate those
values clearly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because promises have
to be honoured. Because governments have social contracts with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. This government had a social contract with the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador and they broke that social contract.

We would
do what the NDP did in Alberta. We would invest in our people. We would invest
in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We would invest in jobs because we know
that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, every person in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador knows how tough the situation is right now and are
willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work and help work us through this.
We know that, because we are a resilient people. We are a people who have
experienced hardship before. We are willing to do that.

We would
replace bogus consultations with meaningful debate and give citizens the info
they need to make informed input, not just three questions: What would you cut?
That's not informed debate. That's not how you build a resilient economy.

We'd
analyze the overall impact of the budget on people. We would use a gender lens.
Obviously, this government hasn't used a gender lens when you look at the
hardship that this budget places on many women and children in Newfoundland and
Labrador. There was no gender lens process applied to this budget. We would have
applied a disability lens. We would have applied a youth lens.

A number
of Members said: How would you like it if we pass on a greater debt to our
children? Well, what we're passing on is a jobless society through the attrition
plan, through the cutting of jobs. We're saying to our young people there will
be no jobs here for you. There will be no public sector jobs. There is no future
here for you.

We would
have applied a youth lens. We would have said what does this budget mean for
youth in terms of education, in terms of opportunities, but also in terms of
future jobs for them. That's what we would have looked at, and we would have
applied a seniors' lens.

What
does this budget mean for our seniors who are struggling with the high cost of
housing? We don't see any increases in rent supplements to accommodate the high
cost of housing and the stagnant income that many of our seniors face.
Particularly, we know we have the highest percentage of seniors on GIS and OAS;
most of them widowed women who didn't have paid work in the labour force.

So we
would have applied all of those lens. We would have said what are the rollouts?
What are the effects of this budget on women, on people with disabilities, on
young people, on seniors? Really, what is the real rollout and how does this
affect our people?

And, we
would have scrapped the levy. Do you know what? We wouldn't have scrapped the
levy; we wouldn't have come up with the levy. What a draconian tax measure. What
an unfair tax measure that is.

We would
have incorporated needed revenue into our personal income tax and corporate
income tax platform. We would have seen a 1.5 per cent increase in corporate
income tax. Bring it back to what it really should be and on par with the rest
of Atlantic Canada. That would not have placed a hardship on our corporations,
1.5 per cent. They know that other corporations, that other provinces have a
higher tax. We wouldn't have had to scrap the levy; we wouldn't have put it in
the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS: Where that came from, it
certainly didn't come from any public engagement and consultation.

We would
replace the doubling of the gas tax, which has disproportionate impact on rural
people and communities with a measured carbon tax based on polluter pays
principle and following a thorough public debate on options. That's what we
would have done, and that's what we need to do. We need to look at our
conservation measures. We need to look at our environmental measures. We need to
do that. It's time to step up.

The
minister announced a $570 million infrastructure but didn't announce the $138
million that was cut in that infrastructure budget. We'd reinstate that and we'd
focus on green technologies, because we know that green technologies are a
growing area. We know that our people, people who worked in the oil industry
have the skills, pipefitters, electricians, plumbers; they have the skills to
work in the area of green technologies. We know it takes less money to create
jobs in that area than it does in the oil industry. So we would focus on that.

We would
absolutely insist in stepping up on a fair tax review. Because it's time for us
to have a fair tax review and it's been put on the backburner for too long.
Before imposing any extra taxes, we would do a whole systematic,
process-oriented fair tax review of our taxation system for the province. And we
would review Muskrat Falls. We wouldn't lock in the $1.3 billion with no
questions asked. For Nalcor to ask for $1.3 billion, have the money sent to them
with absolutely no questions asked, we would not do that.

We would
keep it simple, with our few core values at hand to guide us, to be the guiding
principles for any decisions and any plans that are made. We wouldn't do a
bombardment of tax measures; we would seriously streamline the approach because
people are confused, people are worried, people are afraid, people are
despondent and people feel that there is no hope. The role of government is to
give people hope. The role of government is to ensure that people can
participate fully in the economy.

As
Rachel Notley said, Alberta cannot control the international price of oil,
Newfoundland and Labrador cannot control the international price of oil, but
what we can control and what we can shape is our response to this market
volatility.

Madam
Speaker, this budget is about choices. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
we've all heard from them. We've heard from them on open line shows. We've heard
from them at demonstrations. We've heard from them in our offices. We've heard
from them by email. We've heard from them by petitions, all of us in this House.
Every one of us in this House has heard the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
say we do not like this budget. This budget is not in the best interest of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They know that.

This
budget has not been based on a solid core of values in bringing our province
forward. It's been an accounting exercise. It has no vision. It has no plan for
diversification. It has no guts. It has no creativity.

This
budget is about choices. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador implore this
government to go back to the drawing board and develop a budget based on values
of ensuring that every person has access to the opportunity to become a
contributing member of our community.

In
Newfoundland and Labrador, we are a resilient people. Some of us can tighten our
belts. For some of us there is room; some of us can do that. All of us, though,
are willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work, if only we had leadership,
vision, hope and boldness to lead us on.

Thank
you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's an
honour and a privilege for me to be able to stand here in my place on behalf of
my constituents and make some further comments towards the budget. I wanted to
share with all Members of the House of Assembly and anyone who happens to be
watching the broadcast tonight that we all had a proud moment here in the House
of Assembly in 2014.

That was
when all Members of the House of Assembly stood here united behind the full-day
kindergarten initiative. At the time CBC reported that educators in the province
were applauding the provincial government's decision to bring in full-day
kindergarten in 2016. That would be this coming September.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Atlantic province that doesn't have
full-day kindergarten, and it's estimated that no less than 80 per cent of five
year olds in Canada have access to it. It went on to quote individuals from the
Jimmy Pratt Foundation and the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation,
philanthropic organizations that have been advocating for Newfoundland and
Labrador to take some leadership and finally catch up with the rest of the
country.

That was
a proud moment we had here in the House of Assembly. And ever since then, and
ever since we came back after Christmas it has all started to unravel, which I
find to be highly interesting because it was the Members opposite, the Official
Opposition, that proposed full-day kindergarten after much lobbying; and, in
fact, during the provincial election campaign, the Third Party had campaign
literature out there alleging that the Liberal Party was backing off full-day
kindergarten. There was no word of truth to that. It's one of the things that
we're following through on.

Now that
we have both of the Opposition parties backing off that commitment, basically,
as far as I'm concerned, betraying people who through that this was going to be
a reality in September and throwing it all under the bus for political reasons.
We have people contacting me and other Members of the House of Assembly and
government and asking why we would proceed with full-day kindergarten.

Well, as
I said in this House of Assembly several years ago, why would we not, because we
can't afford to, considering the return on investment. People have said to me:
Where is the evidence? Well if you go on to Google, there are more than 20,000
research and academic articles with empirical evidence that largely support the
introduction of this.

To give
you just a few examples  and I don't have much time, so I'll try to do the best
that I can. The research shows that full-day kindergarten is associated with
improved literacy, improved numeracy, smoother transitions to grade one, and
even it has been suggested increased post-secondary graduation rates, long
after; helps to build a generation of learners who are self-motivated, more
successful, healthier, happier children; builds better social regulation; helps
them to regulate their behaviour, to focus their attention, to follow
instructions, to co-operate with teachers and other children and remember the
things they know they need to do; leads to better emotional self-regulation;
helps children control aggression in social situations, what to be aware of and
able to respond to the feelings of others, to have empathy for others.

All of
these data were collected from classroom observations, from focus groups with
children, from focus groups with teachers, from focus groups with parents, from
report card information, from parent surveys and from achievement test scores.
None of this is made up; it's all fact.

The
research shows that children who participate in full-day kindergarten get a
solid foundation for their future learning. You get a stronger start in school
and on and on and on. More time with classmates during the day to help them to
be able to socialize with other children, to develop the academic and social
skills necessary for future success.

The
trend has grown. The trend in implementing full-day kindergarten has resulted in
both societal changes and educational concerns; greater numbers of single
parents and dual income families in the workforce  the very individuals and
families that the Opposition claims that they're representing, when they're
throwing full-day kindergarten under the bus.

Researchers have found that most teachers also prefer full-day kindergarten
programs. Teachers in this province, hundreds of them, have participated in
professional development and are basically at the moment, hundreds of them,
participating in face-to-face training in the area of full-day kindergarten to
bring them up to speed on what is required on a curriculum that has been around
for years because the completely kindergarten curriculum is not new. And I hear
Members saying things like the curriculum haven't been ironed out. Well, the
curriculum was ironed out long ago.

There
was $30 million set aside two years ago for this initiative. Much of the
planning for it was underway by the time the November 30 election rolled around.
We felt a responsibility to implement the program for parents and for children,
and we're not walking away from it. We're not walking away from it because we
know there are positive academic and social benefits for children, especially
children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, those from educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds, those children whose parents have low levels of
literacy.

We've
seen that children who attend full-day kindergarten scored higher on
standardized tests. They had fewer grade retentions. They had fewer failures.
They have scored higher on achievement tests than those even in the half-day
programs on every single item tested. The children enrolled in all-day
kindergarten programs had higher attendance rates. They went to school more
frequently. Reading comprehension scores were somewhat higher in later grades.
Mathematic scores were significantly higher in later grades.

Teachers
reported significantly greater progress for full-day kindergarten in literacy,
in math, in general learning skills. There are social and behavioural effects of
full-day kindergarten that demonstrate the return on investment in our children
is worth it.

If you
look at the research, we know that 85 per cent of brain development has happened
by the time children are hitting school at the age of five. We are trying to
catch up with the rest of the country. Many provinces in Canada not only have
full-day kindergarten for five year olds, they have full-day kindergarten for
four year olds. And we're far away from that. We have an opportunity to move our
children ahead, to improve their achievement scores in school, and the
Opposition should not be turning their back on those children now.

There is
strong support for the effectiveness of full-day kindergarten in terms of
children's classroom behaviour. One landmark study looked at the relationship
between the kindergarten schedule and children's classroom behaviour. The
children in full-day kindergarten demonstrated more originality, more
independent learning, more involvement in classroom activities, more
productivity with peers, more intellectual independence, less failure, less
anxiety, more reflectiveness, less holding back, less withdrawn, more approach
to teachers, more initiative.

No
dimension of children's classroom behaviour was more positive in the half-day
program than it was in the full-day program in many of these studies. When you
compare the half-day kindergarten program to the full-day program, the evidence
is clear. The evidence on socialization is clear. Full-day kindergarten programs
encourage children to have more peer-to-peer, child-to-child interactions that
are more positive. And God knows what we've seen the last few weeks; we need
more positive interactions between people in our society.

Significantly greater progress in learning social skills that children need;
improved attitudes towards education; and beyond academic achievement, other
aspects of children's, teachers', families' and parent's lives are all affected
by full-day kindergarten.

Parents
of children in full-day kindergarten were satisfied with the programs, on the
whole. They believe that their children were better prepared for the first
grade, and by and large all the research shows that after a full day of
kindergarten children are better prepared for the first grade.

Parents
reported that all-day kindergarten teachers gave more suggestions for home
activities. And we're not talking homework; we're talking play-based learning at
home. Parents also felt that their children benefited socially from full-day
kindergarten.

Parents
reported a preference for it, citing advantages such as a more relaxed
atmosphere. We have a tremendous issue with anxiety amongst children in schools
today, and there is evidence to suggest that this would help to ameliorate that.
So why would we throw full-day kindergarten under a bus now when we have an
opportunity to invest in children who have special needs or might develop
anxiety issues later?

More
opportunities for children to choose activities and develop their own interest;
more time for creative activities, et cetera, et cetera; teacher attitudes,
parent attitudes, curriculum outcomes, on and on and on. I could go on, but
these are the facts and I encourage Members of the Opposition to remember the
facts because it wasn't very long ago that we we're having an election campaign
and they were all committed to it as well. Let's all keep our eye on the ball.

Another
thing I just want to say, because I'm running out of time, I observed the
Opposition critic, the Member for Conception Bay East  Bell Island, telling me
about their new-found appreciation for maintaining teacher units and more
teachers at schools and so on. I will just correct one thing he said in Question
Period, or in response to a Ministerial Statement today, it says no investment
in inclusion in this budget  absolutely false.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY: He said no investment in
inclusion in this budget  absolutely false. In the Department of Education
alone 

AN HON. MEMBER: Get him to stand up
(Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:  he should stand up and
basically withdraw that statement  there are 27 new positions for special
education teachers in this budget, and 115 additional student assistant hours
every day for children; millions of dollars of investment in inclusive education
practices in schools in this budget. So that's completely wrong.

He also
remembers what happened here just a short time ago.
Budget 2013, does anybody remember that? That was a budget where
they threw the four school districts together  remember that  without any
consultation with anybody, other than a handful of people. Amalgamated the
school districts with no consultation; increases in fees; increases in tobacco;
increases to admission to historic sites, the soothsayers of our culture, our
history and our language; increases to fees for ferries; and the 10 per cent
reduction in registration for vehicles that you got by going online to do it was
removed.

So the
Official Opposition are certainly no strangers to fee increases either. Then
cuts to positions: 485 jobs cut from the core public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. KIRBY: Four hundred and eighty-five
jobs cut from the core public service; another 450 positions going from health
care, from school boards, from the College of the North Atlantic; about 142
positions removed from education; 142 teacher positions eliminated in that
budget, plus 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:  18 additional positions
were lost due to declining enrolment.

This
year, we kept 27 positions that would have been lost due to declining enrolment
and we're keeping them for inclusive education. They did not keep those
positions. So a total of 160 teacher positions were cut in the 2013 budget.

Now, the
great soothsayers of our education system, fast forward to
Budget 2015, a further 77.5 positions cut. So between two budgets,
this previous administration managed to cut no less than 238 teacher positions
from the system  almost 240 teacher units cut by the previous administration
over the course of two budgets.

The net
reduction in this budget is 73. And I will never stand here in the House of
Assembly and pretend that's a good thing, like the previous administration did
when they were cutting 238 positions from our schools. Absolutely, stood here
and said that it would not cause any hardship whatsoever. It was a great thing.
Well, I don't think reducing any is a great thing, but we're in a difficult
position as a result of the complete and utter mess that we find ourselves in
today.

Back to
the 2103 budget, another 250 vacant positions were also eliminated. That gets
underreported as well. So well, well, well over 1,000 positions, hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of positions reduced. And in recent days, we've also heard
their new-found interest in literacy. They had none in it when they were on this
side of the House of Assembly. Now they are on that side of the House of
Assembly, it's a big-ticket item for them.

After
failing to invest in libraries when they were there, they basically oversaw the
reduction, reduction and reduction in funding for public libraries. They can
deny it if they want. We ended up in a situation where we had twice as many
libraries as comparable jurisdictions in Canada did, with 50 per cent less
funding. And in that 2013 budget there was $1.3 million cut from public library
funding 

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. KIRBY: There was $1.3 million cut by
the previous administration, the Progressive Conservatives, in 2013 from the
provincial library budget. They also cut a great many different teaching
positions in that same budget, and it's something that ought to be remembered
because it's not a road that we choose to go down. There were positions cut for
specialist teachers of all matters. They cut administrative positions 

MR. KIRBY: Sorry, I thought I was
talking to the Minister of Service NL for a second there. I got carried away.

In any
case, the case I'm trying to make here is that there were a great many positions
cut, previously, from literacy. There were library positions cut. There were
public librarian positions cut, as well, in the midst of all of that.

It's
being thrown back at us in the face of this exceptionally embarrassing and low
literacy rate that we have amongst the adult population in this province. It
does concern every Member of the House of Assembly, but what did the previous
administration do? T

They cut
Adult Basic Education from the College of the North Atlantic  they removed that
all together. They cut specialist learning resource teachers in the schools, in
addition to cutting the public library funding. They backtracked on their
promise to increase access to the Comprehensive Arts and Science Transition
program at College of the North Atlantic. Most importantly, I think we want to
remember that the long-standing promise to introduce a strategic adult literacy
plan, which the previous administration committed to way back in 2007, was never
honoured. In the beep, beep, beep budget of 2014, the one where the government
tried to back up on everything it had done, they recommitted to it.

I just
want to close off again on the full-day kindergarten because I think there is an
onus on all Members of the House of Assembly to get behind this initiative.

Almost
50 years ago, Dr. Phil Warren carried out the Royal Commission on Education and
Youth in the late 1960s. One of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission
on Education and Youth was the introduction of a kindergarten program in this
province  50 years ago. We're trying to get caught up with 50 years of
educational change in North America.

We need
to do better for early years education. This is not glorified babysitting at any
far stretch of your imagination. This is probably one of the most valuable
investments in this budget, because when we invest in those tiniest of our
children, our students in our schools, we're putting them on the right path for
their lives. All of the research demonstrates that is true, is a fact and there
is no exaggeration at all.

Thank
you.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind
the Member his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY: Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.

It's
certainly a privilege for me to rise in this hon. House. I've enjoyed listening
to the speeches of my colleagues tonight, particularly the Member for St. John's
South. I found her discussion  St. John's Centre  in the debate very
interesting and informative, Madam Speaker.

I have
to say, listening to some of the other speeches proves to be still very
frustrating. I just listened to the Minister of Education for 20 minutes and as
I was listening I was boggled at how many times he contradicted himself. On one
hand he was saying you guys did nothing, on the next hand he said you guys are
no strangers to fee increases.

I'd like
to bring his memory back to the time  yes, in 2013. We do very much remember
that budget and it was nothing like the budget we are experiencing here in
Newfoundland and Labrador today. What did we hear from Members opposite at that
time? I think the Member opposite was an NDPer at the time. We had screams
coming across the floor 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY:  at the House to us, Madam
Speaker, because they were saying: Oh, my goodness, how can you cut this, how
can you cut that? Yet, today their spin-doctors try to portray it as a spending
problem or that it was brought on by our administration. So, so frustrating,
Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY:
If only in 2013, when we tried to make the corrections that were required, we
had received support perhaps then we wouldn't be in this predicament today. It
is a challenge, I'd say to that. I could go for hours.

I'm
going to move back into things I was planning on discussing but before I do, the
Member for Placentia West  Bellevue also talked about spend, spend, spend in
his speech and talked about $25 billion. I'm going to say every single day that
we came into the House, Madam Speaker, when we were in government they wanted
more, more, more. In fact, they demanded more, stomped their feet. Smoke came
out of their ears sometimes.

Whatever
program or initiative we undertook it was never, never enough; yet, here in the
House today they pontificate, oh boy, you should have put the brakes on. It's a
very interesting place to be here in the House of Assembly. I'm sure if we can 
to prove my case I guess, just take a look at the petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. PERRY: Madam Speaker, I'm going to
ask for your protection. I'm getting a lot of heckling from across the way.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY: Check the petitions when the
Liberals were in Opposition. How many times did they present a petition to
decrease spending? Not once, never seen it, Madam Speaker, not once in this
House.

Actually, I arrived late back to the House today because I stayed in my district
yesterday for three very important events that took place. I could not help, as
I attended the first one, thinking, my gosh, how many of our community
organizations and how many individuals will suffer over the course of the next
year because of the fact we have less money in our pockets to donate to those in
need and to charities.

The
first event I attended was for a local person who requires medical treatment
that he can't avail of in Canada and is doing some fundraising to go to the
States for stem cell treatment. Everybody came out to participate. This time
next year, though, I fear we're not going to have that extra $5 or that extra
$10 in our pocket. The tax man is going to have it and we're not going to be
seeing the benefits of it, Madam Speaker.

The next
event I went to yesterday afternoon was a protest in Harbour Breton. I have to
tell you, Madam Speaker, it was one of the largest protests I've ever attended
in my region. A very peaceful demonstration but people are very, very upset. We
had devastating news in my rural area last week. Madam Speaker, mine is not a
rural area on the decline; mine is a rural area that is growing.

We have
seen over 1,000 new jobs created because of the leadership and diversification
efforts of the Progressive Conservative government over the last 10 years; 1,000
new jobs in an area the size of the Connaigre Peninsula on the Coast of Bays,
Bay d'Espoir area is quite phenomenal. In direct and indirect because it's not
just the direct jobs on the farm sites. It's the people working in the gas
stations. It's the restaurants which are booming. It's the hotels which are
increasing. It is the convenience stores, Madam Speaker. Everyone is seeing a
difference and an improvement in the way of life because of the investments in
diversification that have taken place. Along with those investments and
diversification, our government improved the social well-being of the area.

I say to
Members opposite, I certainly do not consider paving the Bay d'Espoir Highway a
waste of money. I consider that a strong investment in the future. We now have
over $200 million worth of product coming up over that road, Madam Speaker, and
that volume and size of that industry is going to continue to grow in the years
to come. So it's certainly not a waste of money.

Is
providing health care to seniors who are over two hours away from a regional hub
a waste of money? Absolutely not! Was establishing dialysis in a rural, remote
area so people could continue to reside at home a waste of money? Absolutely
not!

People
are so very upset. We lost in our district dialysis. We're closing down a clinic
in a community the size of Hermitage. Now, Madam Speaker, to put that in
perspective, our roads in Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune are not like the TCH. They
are RLU 80 standard, alder growth very close to the sides of the roads, narrow
roads, very small shoulders and a high increase in the volume of tractor-trailer
traffic. Now we're shutting down a clinic. We're telling people that they have
to  so you're in McCallum, you're not feeling well, you have to catch a ferry,
an hour and a half ride to Hermitage before you can get off the ferry. And guess
what? When you get in Hermitage, there is no taxi service.

If you
don't have a friend to call or a buddy to rely upon, I don't even know how
you're getting to Harbour Breton to get to the doctor. Right now, the situation
we're facing with the closure of the Hermitage clinic is 600 people from
surrounding areas like Gaultois and McCallum, Hermitage, Seal Cove, Sandyville
will now have to travel 45 minutes, on a good day  that's when there's no fog
which is very, very common down there, Madam Speaker.

We can
go 40, 50 days straight in the summertime and you can't see two feet in front of
you. In the wintertime, there is no snow clearing after 5 o'clock. These people
will be forced to somehow find a way to Hermitage  and I don't know how. A lot
of them are seniors on fixed incomes. Find a way from Hermitage to Harbour
Breton to see a doctor. At the same time in Harbour Breton they're losing two
nurses, and they're expected to handle 600 to 800  the volume is going to
increase by 600 to 800.

The
locals yesterday were telling me, who live in Harbour Breton, we call now and we
can't get in to see the doctor for two or three weeks, so what's going to happen
when everybody from Hermitage and Gaultois and Rencontre and everyone is coming?
Rencontre East, Madam Speaker, they have to catch the ferry to Pool's Cove and
get a ride to Harbour Breton. I really don't know how it's going to happen.

These
decisions really need to be revisited. And part of what my people said yesterday
when they got together in the protest is we're going to continue to fight this.
This just doesn't make any sense. You're tearing the guts, as I said last time I
spoke, out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The things that matter most are
health care and education. If we want to have a decent quality of life in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, education and health care are fundamental, which
leads me to the closures of libraries.

Four
libraries in my district and 22 communities. I asked a question last week and I
think the Minister of Business responded: No libraries going to be cut if it's
within 30 minutes. Well, Madam Speaker, the library in St. Alban's, which has
the largest usage out of all four in the entire region, 4,300 people in
statistics  the highest stats in the entire region  the doors are being shut.
Guess how long it takes us to get to the next closest library? It is 102
kilometres, one hour and 15 minutes later. You tell me how a single mother is
going to get her preschooler to a library program in Harbour Breton on a daily
basis, or once a week. It's not going to happen, Madam Speaker, and these
decisions really need to be reversed.

If
you're serious that you're having regional clusters, then understand your
regions. In the Coast of Bays, the distance between Harbour Breton and Bay
d'Espoir is 102 kilometres. If you're having something within a half an hour, we
need to see some restoration of these services.

In
Hermitage, Madam Speaker, you took their clinic and you took their library.
Again, I said where else do the children have to go in communities like Gaultois
and Hermitage other than the library? I, myself, will say I still remember my
very first librarian. When I see the lady who was our librarian when I was a
little girl, because the library was my favourite place and, you know, my nieces
and my great-nieces I have today, it's their favourite place.

You can
look on Facebook at any given day and you see all the little kids who are all
excited, and their moms are taking pictures of them because they are on their
way to story time at the library, Madam Speaker. It is a part of our social hub,
a part of our vibrancy.

The
minister got up and talked about how important all-day kindergarten was. Well, I
would like to think he feels those same sentiments for the importance of
preschool education which he has now effectively torn away from the young ones
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker. It is something that I
strongly implore they take a second look at because it is absolutely devastating
to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then, of
course, I finished my day yesterday with the telethon. All of the fire
departments in my region have telethons. It's very important to their continued
ongoing operations. I say where are we going to find the donations to keep these
community groups going when out of our pockets is anywhere from  depending on
what amount of money you make  $500 to $5,000 additional taxes you're going to
be paying this year? It is certainly a devastating time for the people of this
province.

It's
very disheartening, Madam Speaker. I'm not going to have nowhere near enough
time to discuss things I wanted to talk about again today. But I had someone say
to me yesterday, so what is it they want anyway? If we don't live in a mansion,
we're not good enough. Do they think we all have to drive around in Cadillacs?
Because let me tell you, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador we don't want the
hospital with all the PET scanners and all the fancy gadgets. We want to be able
to go see a doctor, get stabilized, have our life saved if we're having a heart
attack, get a diagnosis, be able to get a prescription for flu, be able to get
our blood thinners, be able to get our blood work done. We're not asking for
Cadillacs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We're
asking for basic services to get us to the next regional centre of excellence,
Madam Speaker. Those basic services are being stripped away so that we can all
be sent to a Cadillac in Gander or Grand Falls. Not good enough, Madam Speaker,
for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Our people definitely deserve better and we
at least, at the very least, deserve basic health care, and that is being
quickly eroded under the new Liberal government.

I want
to talk about the Williams government for a while. I want to bring us back in
time. We have all this anger and your spin doctors of the government are trying
to say this was all his fault. We never felt so good, as a people. I would
venture to say even you guys as Members opposite, as Liberals, felt a pride of
place in who you were. You felt good about the potential of this province and
that confidence we had in ourselves. You were able to walk around and hold your
head up high because you knew your leader had confidence in you and you had
confidence in yourself.

All
that's gone today. In a few short months, since the Liberals have taken
government, people are walking around depressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY: What a change in our psyche
as a people, Madam Speaker.

People
say that money was wasted. Like Members opposite, in one hand the Minister of
Education said money was wasted and in the next hand, he praised up some
initiatives. Like I said, I'm constantly scratching my head because they're
speaking out of both sides of their mouth all the time and it's really hard to
follow.

Class
sizes, Madam Speaker, under our administration were capped. Surgery wait times
were shortened. More medications were covered for more people. Dialysis was
provided closer to home. Tuition fees were frozen. Child poverty was reduced
from Canada's highest to Canada's lowest. Those are the types of things that the
Liberals are calling a waste of money. Things like pavement to the Coast of Bays
region that they got up and screamed for in the House of Assembly when they were
Opposition, they're now standing up and saying what a waste of money. What did
you spend that for?

Well, I
can certainly tell you I will stand up in this House every day and advocate for
my region. We want our libraries back, Madam Speaker. We want our clinic back in
Hermitage. We want to see dialysis restored. In time, with the right government,
we're going to see that kind of growth happen again. I pray it's not too long
away and that we can survive the tenure that we're currently experiencing.

There
are those who talk about a heritage fund, and looking at Norway as an example.
That's a bit ironic because we're doing what Norway did. If you look at Norway
and the whole history of it, they had been a poor region of Scandinavia when
they struck oil several decades ago. They chose to invest first in
infrastructure and services to raise their standard of living. Then, 25 years
later, they started saving a heritage fund. Madam Speaker, we had 10 years of
trying to rebuild our infrastructure, some of which is not done.

I'll
mention the Corner Brook hospital. Some infrastructure pieces still need to be
done, and I truly hope the Liberals honour that commitment. You have to
acknowledge infrastructure needs are very real. You can't just suddenly stop
spending on infrastructure. I would challenge that a budget like we have this
year, which increases taxes, freezes your economy in a time when we should be
trying to create more jobs and probably investing more in infrastructure to do
some stimulation, like your federal cousins in Ottawa are doing, Madam Speaker.

History
will show that because of the investments our government has made over the past
decade and a half, we are a stronger people. Our people are better cared for,
and our children are better educated than they were before.

When the
world went into a recession in 2009, we weathered that storm by staying on
course. The Governor of the Bank of Canada at the time, Mark Carney, even
praised our province as the example that other provinces should follow. We
emerged from the recession strong and growing while other provinces struggled.
That happened, Madam Speaker, because of the leadership and the vision of our
government. I fear the results of this budget will be vastly different and
tragically so.

Our plan
was not about spending recklessly. It was about restraint, but not reckless
restraint. As I said when I started out, every time we did try to exercise some
restraint, like the HST, the outcry was unbelievable. Now look where we are.

We were
focused, strategic and progressive. There was a credible fiscal and economic
plan, and after it was delivered in April 2015 there was no public outrage or
panic. There was from Members opposite, but nothing like we're seeing today from
the public at large.

This is
really hitting people in their pocketbooks. This has people unable to sleep at
night. This is going to have a devastating impact  I would venture to say  on
our mental health and well-being. It's something we're going to need very
closely monitored because I'm seeing it already and only two weeks have passed.
Wait until that money actually is out of their homes. Then they're really going
to feel it. Then it's not going to be worry, then it's going to be starvation.

Our
economy did not go into a freefall last year. Confidence remained consistently
high. The bond-rating agencies accepted our plan and took no action to downgrade
our credit rating, even as oil prices continued to fall. Our government was
facing the challenge head on and dealing with it responsibly. We took the middle
path between doing too little to make a difference and doing so much that it
would crush people in our economy, which is where I believe we are today.

We
warned that doing nothing was not an option and we also warned that cutting deep
would do more harm than good. We said that reckless cutting could actually cost
the province tens of thousands of jobs. That is why we chose to take the middle
path to avoid the consequences of that.

The
Liberal Party, on the other hand, took the opposite approach, even though
everyone could see oil prices were continuing to decline and every party knew
the impact. They rolled out a very costly plan anyway. They promised to reverse
tax increases. While we were reducing positions through attrition, they promised
to protect positions saying jobs are safe. They promised to spend enormous
amounts of money immediately on major new projects across the province. They
said they had a new LEAP economic plan to pay for all of this.

The Telegram
and others at the time called their plan magic and fantasy, but people were
willing to give the Liberals a chance to deliver and are now very, very
disheartened and scared because they've done so. Hindsight is 20/20, Madam
Speaker. Instead of delivering on what they promised, the Liberals have
delivered exactly the opposite. They did not reverse tax increases but went
much, much further in raising taxes and fees. They created new taxes which we're
all still in complete shock about yet.

They did
not protect jobs but announced layoffs and closures. They did not deliver a
credible long-term plan. As a consequence, the three bond-rating agencies
stepped in and downgraded the province in January of this year citing lack of a
plan as one of the factors, Madam Speaker. That downgrade has raised the cost of
borrowing which means more of the money we take in as revenue has to go towards
paying on the interest on what the province is borrowing.

The
Liberals haven't even finished rolling out their cuts. More are planned in the
fall and 2017.

I
haven't said half of what I wanted to discuss here tonight, but I'm telling you
the people of this province have spoken loudly. I think we all have a
responsibility to listen to them. You guys, as a Liberal caucus, do have the
ability to negotiate with your executive. I call upon you, please, do what you
can to make this budget different and better.

Thank
you.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind
the hon Member her time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters  Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. B. DAVIS: Madam Speaker, I'm excited to
stand here today. First of all, I'd like to say to the hon. Member across the
way, the truth will set you free, my dear. The truth will set you free.

I've had
a difficult time standing here today because of the situation we've been dealt.
I could blame the previous administration and spend a significant amount of time
addressing their poor decisions. I feel for each and every person, not only in
my district, but the entire province that is affected by the difficult choices
we had to make with this budget as a result of the financial mess the province
has had to endure through the total mismanagement, Madam Speaker, by the
previous administration.

No one
in this House is excited about this budget. I know I'm not. I don't agree with
all aspects of the budget. We have to take decisive action to stabilize the
future so that our children and grandchildren will not be burdened by the debt
incurred by the previous administration's recklessness.

We could
not continue to move in the direction of the previous administration. That
approach was unsustainable. We have all been receiving calls and emails, and I
am endeavouring to reach back to everyone in my district. I have listened to
your concerns and ideas. I've heard these concerns expressed with respect to the
temporary levy and the fairness associated with this initiative. No one loves
the situation we are in.

I
brought these concerns forward to our caucus and ensure that the residents who
contacted me have their voices heard. The levy is a temporary measure designed
to help us clean the financial disaster that the previous government wilfully
pursued. In fact, it is interesting to note, only 38 per cent of the taxpayers
will not pay the temporary levy, as well as 42.8 per cent of those remaining
will pay less than $340 on this temporary levy.

I, like
everyone else in this House, am not excited that we are instituting a temporary
levy but I will continue to work to remove it as quickly as we possibly can. I
understand my constituent's concerns. I, too, am concerned that people will be
affected; however, we have worked very, very hard on this side of the House to
provide the support to the most vulnerable in our community. These individuals
need our support.

A
resident called me last week. He earns a total of $12,000 a year on Income
Support. He was very nervous about the changes we announced in our budget. Madam
Speaker, I explained to him how the budget would affect him personally. There
will be no personal income tax. He would have to pay no temporary Deficit
Reduction Levy. Our government will not ask the most vulnerable in our society
to pay for the mess of the previous administration.

Depending on his personal consumption, and that varies from person to person,
the increases in HST and gas tax would equate to approximately $200 a year.
However, with the introduction of the Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement, he will be receiving $210 in October and then two payments of $105;
one in January and one in April 2017. As well, he will be eligible for an
additional fuel allowance of $250. He would actually have $230 more than he did
last year at that time. Although it is not much of an increase he was pleased,
and I am pleased that others in the situation will be better off.

Madam
Speaker, as well, a senior couple, one 68 years old and the other 70 years old,
gave me a call a couple of days ago. They wanted to know what they would receive
from the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and the enhanced Seniors'
Benefit. Between them they earn $26,000 a year which would leave them about
$13,000 in taxable income each. They will not pay the income tax; they will not
be charged the temporary levy. Again, depending on their consumption for HST and
gas tax, it would equate to about $450.

Because
of this change in benefits, this couple receives $710 in a newly created
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and they will also receive an
enhanced Seniors' Benefit of $1,313. This is up from the previous $1,000
approximately. They were surprised they had received these increases in amounts
of money. This is much different than what they were expecting, considering the
information Opposition Parties have been communicating.

Madam
Speaker, in October of this year, this couple will receive a double payment of
$1,011.50 with an additional payment of $505.75 in both January 2017 and April
2017. Our government provided these additional supports to soften any impact
that the most vulnerable seniors and low-income families would face. Just to be
clear for the Members on the opposite side of the House, this senior couple that
called me a couple of days ago will actually be $310 better off than they were
in the last budget. That, to me, is a win. In the financial situation we're in,
that's a win.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. B. DAVIS: You had your time to speak.

They
were both relieved and pleased to hear this. They also mentioned that they would
tell their friends as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. B. DAVIS: Thank you for the protection,
Madam Speaker.

This
government is committed to ensuring that the brunt of the measures taken in this
budget does not fall to the most vulnerable in our province, as the Opposition
continues to forecast. That is why, in this budget, our government has put
forward a series of measures designed to bolster supports and resources for both
seniors and vulnerable members of our population. We have announced $3.5 million
in support for placement for select individuals with enhanced-care needs for
personal care homes.

Madam
Speaker, we invested $250,000 in a new seniors' advocate office, with an annual
budget of $500,000 beginning in 2017-2018. Despite the fact the hon. Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune sees this office as a luxury, on this side of the
House we do not agree. I believe this is a great investment to help seniors in
our communities. A seniors' advocate will help identify ways to better assist
seniors as we face the reality of providing care and services to an aging
population.

We are
providing $300,000 to the Seniors Resource Centre to enhance its information and
referral system; $300,000 for age-friendly transportation services; a new
director of adult protection to reduce risks for adults; $100,000 to support
continued development of age-friendly communities throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. These measures will go some way towards ensuring that the seniors are
protected during this tough economic climate.

Is it
enough? Absolutely not. We must do more to ensure seniors, who have given so
much to our communities, receive their much-needed support. One of the policies
I'm most excited about is our home first policy. This encourages support to let
seniors age at home where they are more comfortable, both physically and
emotionally, but it's also an opportunity to ensure people are receiving the
best possible care where and when they need it.

Another
measure that will work specifically to protect seniors in this tough economic
climate is the enhanced Seniors' Benefit I mentioned earlier. This is a $12.7
million investment by our government to ensure seniors get a steady, reliable
income that will help them continue to contribute to society.

We must
also protect the low-income earners and families who struggle to make ends meet.
That is why we have created the NL Income Supplement. We have an obligation to
put in place revenue measures to address the deficit, but we also have to ensure
the most vulnerable in our society receive the help they need.

The NLIS
will come into effect on July 1, around the same time as the revenue measures
outlined in the budget will come into effect. As mentioned earlier, the first
quarterly payment will be disbursed in October and it will be a double payment.
This supplement will be automatically applied to individuals whose income is
below the threshold of $40,000. The only requirement is that you have filed your
income tax return. This greatly reduces the stress of having to navigate through
additional layers of red tape.

Madam
Speaker, there has been much misinformation spread around this budget. Take for
instance the adult dental plan. This plan is very much comparable to plans in
other provinces. The plan was, and still is, available to those individuals
eligible under the Foundation Plan. In addition, those individuals that are
currently working through the system prior to April 14, just so everyone
understands  they will be covered. It is a manual system. It takes time to go
through. We are working through this process.

Madam
Speaker, two key features of our plan to stabilize the economy are economic
diversification, which my colleagues across the way continue to talk about, and
selling government lands to raise revenues. We have huge parcels of lands that
are Crown of course, standing vacant and unused. This land can be put into work
for the economic betterment of the individuals and communities across our
province.

There
are significant opportunities out there right now for diversification of our
economy. Divesting these lands for the betterment of the public, whether it be
schools that are no longer being used or agricultural spaces, it takes time and
we're going to move on it as quick as we possibly can, but it has to be done
right. That is why the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works is developing a
real estate optimization plan which will determine which parcels of land and
buildings are the best assets for the government to sell. This plan, if done
correctly, will be done for the long-term viability for the province.

Already,
within my district I've had entrepreneurs looking at purchasing land and assets
to develop farming operations in Virginia Waters  Pleasantville, which will
bring much-needed revenues to the province, as well as employment opportunities.

Increasing the number of farming operations in our province makes good sense for
a number of reasons; obviously, it helps diversify and strengthen the economy,
but also helps shore up some food security issues that we face living on an
island.

Madam
Speaker, I'm confident that we can facilitate some innovative, excellent
projects in my district in the near future, and I'm very excited about this
prospect.

The
Minister of Finance announced a few weeks ago that our government is committed
to maintaining core funding for community groups in this budget; this equates to
$70 million. Community groups are vital to our province's health and well-being.
The community sector makes an immense contribution to our society. Our
government recognizes this and provides support.

Community groups work in tandem with government to effectively and efficiently
provide services for our communities. These are groups that can help people on
the front lines in ways government organizations simply can't. As a former
executive director of a not for profit, I can attest to the outstanding impact
these groups can make.

Community groups need dependable sources of funding, and this is exactly what
our government is committing to do. Providing dependable sources of funding to
community group means that they are able to develop long-term strategies and
goals for helping communities, rather than spending more of their time and
energies identifying additional operating sources of funding. I encourage not
for profits to keep up the great advocacy work in our community that makes the
lives of our families each and every day much better.

The
Minister of Finance so eloquently mentioned the importance of continuing to find
efficiencies within the operations of these organizations and groups so that
they can maximize the impact they have on the communities. I believe that these
groups will be creative and open to working with us to find those efficiencies
and to provide that first-class service that they're known to do. We need to
ensure that the money is delivered as quickly and as efficiently as possible to
those groups so that they can continue the excellent work they produce to the
citizens of our province.

Madam
Speaker, I would like to speak for a second about Virginia Park Elementary. The
government has issued a public tender, as we all know, for construction on the
site on March 31 of this year and the project is progressing nicely. We have
held a meeting of the stakeholders for the project and it was extremely
positive. We'll be processing the organizations; we'll be doing another
stakeholder meeting as soon as we get the information on the successful bidder,
when that is announced. That will come in the next few weeks I'm sure.

The
residents of Virginia Park have been waiting for a new elementary school since
2009. The location of the school and site is the former dump on the old Fort
Pepperrell army base which was in operation from 1940 to 1961. The decision to
put the school here was made by the previous administration who consistently
decided to ignore stakeholders in keeping them in the dark about when and how
the project will be completed.

Madam
Speaker, our administration is open and transparent, and committed to engaging
stakeholders at every step in this process. I'm working closely with the
Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Education, the
Department of Environment and Conservation as well as the Newfoundland and
Labrador English School District and the school council from Virginia Park
Elementary to ensure that Virginia Park Elementary gets completed as quickly and
as safely as possible.

Keeping
the children of Virginia Park Elementary safe and healthy is my number one
priority. The new school will be a positive impact to school-aged children in
the community for years to come and it will benefit the entire community. We
want the high-quality facility to match the high quality of teaching by the
wonderful faculty and staff, but it must be safe for all. I'm excited to see the
continual progress on this project and I look forward to being able to cut the
ribbon on this new building in September 2017.

Madam
Speaker, our government is committed to the long-term health and sustainability
of the residents in our province. We have invested in infrastructure to allow us
to finally fill vital gaps in our province's health care system. This includes
investing $8.5 million in support for continued planning and design for the new
Western Memorial Regional Hospital and $2.6 million for the completion of a PET
scanner at the Health Sciences complex expected to be completed this year.
Having the PET scanner as part of our medical infrastructure will greatly
benefit the long term since we will have no longer to wait for transportation of
isotopes out of province. Wait times for our patients will get shorter.

Madam
Speaker, $2 million in new funding for the plan for long-term care in both
Central and Western regions and $2.5 million for support in further planning the
design for the facility to replace the Waterford, this investment will ensure
that we can continue to deliver high-quality health care to residents in our
province.

Government has heard loud and clear about the challenges people living with
mental health and addictions face. The All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions has also had the privilege of hearing from many people with lived
experience, their loved ones, passionate advocacy groups, front-line health care
providers and administrators from the Waterford. I visited the Waterford
Hospital a couple of months ago and the need for replacement was never more
clear to me then.

We have
listened and we have seen the need ourselves. Despite the harsh financial
situation we inherited, we have provided $2.5 million to move forward on the
planning for the replacement of the Waterford.
Budget 2016 recognizes the importance of ensuring proper
infrastructure and supports are in place to provide people with high-quality
treatment and care they deserve.

Mental health and addictions were a key priority for our Liberal platform.
Replacement of the Waterford Hospital represents an important piece of
infrastructure and an important way forward for those who require mental health
services and treatment within our province. Individuals with mental health and
addiction issues who require hospitalization cannot wait, despite the current
fiscal challenges. We stepped up to the plate and found the resources needed to
support this project. Is it enough? No, but it's a start in the right direction.

While
physical infrastructure in the Waterford Hospital is in need of replacement,
patients will continue to receive high-quality care from dedicated and highly
trained professionals at the current facility. We will work to continue to
address the health and safety concerns at the Waterford as they arise  no
different than we do in any of our other facilities  to ensure the ability to
deliver high-quality care is not comprised.

Madam
Speaker, as my time comes to an end, I would like to continue to explore
innovative ideas and solutions to meet the needs of the people living with
mental illness and addictions in our community, both in the acute care system
and just our community. Building a new Waterford Hospital is not a want, it's a
need.

Thank
you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was
impressed with the oratory over the weeks from various sides of the House. I
really just took some notes because one of the things that have struck me is the
level of fog and obfuscation that seems to have been generated in discussions
around this budget.

Rather
than go through it thematically, I'm actually going to go through it
chronologically with some notes from comments from Members opposite. Two of the
Members of the Opposition front bench were kind enough to offer to educate me at
various stages and I take that in the spirit in which it was given.

Starting
chronologically, I thought I'd go through some of the comments from Members
Opposite and kind of put a slightly different spin on some of them. The theme
that's come out of all of this is that there has been a somewhat selective
reinterpretation of what came about on the afternoon of April 14 and the 14,000
words, some of which they choose to listen to in the budget and others they,
kind of, cast off.

The
Member for Ferryland kicked off things with talk of the taxation as a
disincentive. It was a wonderful exercise in hyperbole in actual fact. He did
fail to mention that the taxation levels we had proposed in
Budget 2016 would still make us
competitive with every other Mainland province. We weren't some dreadful outlier
that no one would want to come and work in or live here. We weren't some pariah.

It took
me back to the fact that the comment was the taxation levels, as a package, went
back to 2006 levels. When I did a little bit of research  and I admit to being
a bit geeky about these things  2006 was the year of peak oil production. Even
I knew that as a surgeon and I wasn't involved in politics at that time. The
other thing that struck me was that Budget
2006 was the initial lowering of taxes and it was a budget immediately prior
to a general election.

So 2007
rolled around. Peak oil prices came and went. The next major tax drop was in the
2010 budget. Budget 2010 also
coincidentally happened to be a pre-election budget. There was a general
election shortly afterwards. 2014 rolled around and there were some more
reductions. But if you look at our tax package, essentially, we have gone back
to 2006-07 levels and are still competitive with other jurisdictions. There's
nothing in our taxation scheme that is off the wall compared with other
jurisdictions in terms of personal tax.

The
other thing that my colleague for Stephenville  Port au Port was astute enough
to discover was the Auditor General's report from 2014 which showed a 54 per
cent increase in government expenditure over that period of 10 years. So at the
time as they've lost oil revenue, oil volumes, reduction in royalties, they have
cut taxes and increased expenditure. Really and honestly, I think that actually
has to be taken into context as the flip side of some of his comments. He also
failed to mention that even with the increase in HST and the temporary gasoline
tax we would still have gasoline prices that were comparable with just over a
year ago.

To those
people on the other side of the House who will say, well, ferry costs are going
to go up, it will cost more to deliver food; I have noticed ferrying costs go
down since the price of gasoline went down. So I really can't see that there
should be any material change there.

Moving
along, he then acknowledged there were challenges in health care to access. He
said  and I quote  you can't have everything here. I'd just like you to hold
that phrase for later on. He then went on to talk about long-term care and how
they would have operated these RFP partnership ones directly. But in actual
fact, he obviously hadn't read the RFP, which specifically precluded direct
operation by government of long-term care. It was totally out in the private
sector. There was no thought about any compromise or where the value for money
might lie in that process. They simply had a knee-jerk reaction.

The
other interesting thing is that in the process of generating that RFP they
ignored an EY report in Central which had a perfectly workable solution for
long-term care in that region, and they gutted the plans for Western Memorial
Regional Hospital redesign and rebuild which further added to delays and costs
there. I can come back to that because, as I say, this is kind of chronological.

He then
went on to talk about training the workforce for today. On the face of it that
might actually sound to be very sensible, but really and honestly if you then
think about how long it takes to train somebody, there's a lead time. What you
really need and what is a fundamental gap, which our side of the House are
working towards, is what the needs are going to be tomorrow.

We have
so often simply replicated what we have today and hoped it would work in the
future and it hasn't. So what we really need to do is not do what we've always
done, but to actually plan for the future, make an educated estimate of what
it's going to be and train for tomorrow, not for today.

Again,
chronologically  and this might be a bit eclectic. The Member for Fortune Bay 
Cape La Hune castigated me for changes to the Breast Screening Program for
low-risk women. What I would like to do is to turn around and say why it was
that government, knowing for five years that this was of no benefit to women
under the age of 50  no benefit at all, documented in the literature from the
Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health amongst others  why did they keep
funding it. Why did they keep pouring money, for five years, into a program that
gained nobody anything and generated the worried well? That wasn't answered.
That wasn't answered at all.

So then
we had the Member for Mount Pearl  North?

AN HON. MEMBER: North.

MR. HAGGIE: North, yes. His catch phrase
was we cannot frown on consultations. This was kind of ironic given it was the
21st of April and we had spent three weeks listening to: Will you stop
consulting and come up with a plan? Will you stop talking to people? Get off
your backsides and do something. You're chickening out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. HAGGIE: The Member for Mount Pearl
North, the backrest over there. We were beaten up for consulting and the
proposal to keep consulting. So he cannot frown on it. Keep that in mind.

Okay,
there we go. Where do we go to now?

The
Member for Topsail North  Topsail  Paradise, I got my north and Paradise
confused  he was enthused in his listing of the woes of the economic downturn
where this wasn't predictable and these were circumstances beyond their control.
Really and honestly, it is the responsibility of government, and this side of
the House acknowledges that, to plan for contingencies. There was no planning in
the budgets on the opposite side of the House which gave us any opportunity to
have any degree of financial resilience.

The
money came in and not only did they spend like drunken sailors, they borrowed in
addition on top of it, dug us into a hole. They gave up $4 billion in tax, they
gave up $25 billion in oil revenue and we are in a hole the magnitude of which
is absolutely astounding. I still think nobody on the opposite side of the House
actually gets how bad it is.

We are
the worst in Canada of any jurisdiction at any time in history in terms of per
capita debt. As my learned colleague here said, if we don't deal with this and
deal with it now, it'll be my grandson, Easton, who will be paying the bills in
Lewisporte in 30 years' time and I ain't going to do that. It's not about the
votes; it's about doing the right thing, as someone not too far away from me
said before.

Scrolling down this piece of paper here  aha, yes  takes me to the topic of
dialysis from the Member for Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune. Now then, some years
ago it was decided to put a dialysis unit in Harbour Breton, the cost of that,
$3 million conservatively. The people who were in the Department of Health at
that time know perfectly well that to have institutional-based dialysis, you
need a critical mass of people to support the services and for the services to
be able to support them. That critical mass, as far as I can tell, never
existed, yet it was put there anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

MR. HAGGIE: Yes. For $3 million you can
actually buy home dialysis for 100 patients  100 patients. The dialysis unit in
Harbour Breton has struggled to get four patients through the doors in two
years.

Now
then, a very insightful comment, dialysis should be as close to home as
possible. Mr. Speaker, I would put it to you, there is no place closer to home
for dialysis than home dialysis. Really and honestly, that has been the goal
standard for new dialysis for 12 years  12 years. It can be done safely, it can
be done cheaply.

The
patients love it by comparison, and we can have one dialysis nurse supervise
anywhere from 15 to 20 patients. It is by far the way to do it; yet, there has
been on evidence, not one shred of evidence that there has been any significant
effort by the previous government, by previous ministers of Health, to do
anything with home dialysis. It sat there for 12 years; 12 years. We could have
saved a fortune and redeployed it.

What the
Member for Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune also forgets is that by redeploying the
space from this dialysis unit she'll get the six, long-term care beds she was
moaning about on budget day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: She also referenced addition
of new drugs. Yes, there have been new drugs added to the formulary and that is
important. There's $2.6 million in this year's budget to do just that on an
ongoing basis. What the previous government never did was looked at taking the
damn things off when they were no good anymore. They just sat there and the pot
got bigger. The pot got bigger. The only people who benefited from that are the
drug companies, and that's it, nobody else.

So we
mentioned long-term care and we mentioned Western Memorial. I have my pieces of
paper out of order.

The
Member for Mount Pearl North made comments about the design of Western Memorial
Regional Hospital and why we hadn't moved on it. Well, I'll tell you why. Since
the original proposal, we have had $20 million spent on a design, a redesign, a
redrafting of that design and a redesign because they decided to pull long-term
care out for an RFP that wouldn't fit the bill for anywhere, let alone Western.
So now we've gone back and put it in.

The
interesting thing about that is not only did they waste all that money, at the
same time they were doing this shell game with designs and redesigns, there was
a digger on what is the most expensive dump park in Canada and a minister saying
we've started, the hospital is being built, it'll be done.

How many
people, ministers of the Crown from the previous government, have stood in
Corner Brook and said: see, it's moving. We've spent $22 million on a hole in
the ground with a few wires and some sewage pipes, and that's all we have to
show for it. This government is going to complete the design work on Western
Memorial Regional Hospital based on an institution that will serve the needs of
the people of the West Coast and will be done in a timely way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: I haven't quite used my time,
but I've kind of 

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. HAGGIE: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. HAGGIE: Oh, keep going? All right,
fair enough.

The
Members opposite talked about vision and how there was no vision in this budget,
as if the only people who are allowed to have vision are the Members of the
Third Party. I wrote some notes about that somewhere. Where was it? Never mind.

The
bottom line is we are in damage control. Our vision is to stop the bleeding of
money, is to stabilize and repay the debt and to get us back to a situation
where it is entirely reasonable that we will actually have some money to spend
on programs that we need and programs that we want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: At the moment, we're barely
managing with the programs that we need. It's all right for them to sit there
and write cheques they're never going to have to cash. You can ask for the
world, but realistically speaking, you've got to ask for something that's
realistic.

It's not
their job to provide solutions. It's their job to oppose and pick holes and
challenges, and make us stand up and make us defend our budget. That's what
we're doing.

You've
got to offer things that are reasonable. The Opposition haven't offered anything
except holes. The Third Party, they had a Harry Potter moment as well. I mean
this stuff just will not fly. It's totally economically unreasonable in the
situation at the moment when you're spending $980 million this next year on debt
servicing alone because of the hole that we've been dug. We're only spending
less than $900 million on education.

Yes,
there are all sorts of things we'd like to do, but the thing is we have to keep
the lights on and we have to keep the services at a reasonable level, given what
we can afford. Until and unless someone recognizes that we are in a hole the
magnitude of which there is not the like in any jurisdiction in Canada at any
time, that failure of comprehension prevents them from really seeing what the
problem is and what these solutions represent. These solutions are a package.
They've cherry-picked bits off it because it suits them. They don't have an
answer. They don't have any answer. They don't have a realistic answer. So the
bottom line is this is a package. It works.

They
talk about how the taxation system isn't progressive. It is. That's your deficit
levy. Okay? Progressive, all the way up: $250,000, $350,000. There are not that
many people in this province who earn more than $250,000. I think there are
about 6,000. There isn't enough money they've got to clear our deficit. So you
have to do it. There is no separation  like the Third Party would like us to
have  between government and the people. The people put the government in.
Unfortunately, they have to cash the cheques they wrote with an empty bank
account.

So, Mr.
Speaker, really and honestly, that's my go at attempting to correct some of the
fog and obfuscation that's been dumped on the people of this province.

On that,
I'll give them another two minutes, if they want it, or anybody else.

Thank
you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Lane): The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm
happy to rise in this hon. House to speak on behalf of the constituents in my
home District of Exploits to Budget 2016.
It's a difficult budget. It's full of tough choices and revenue actions we wish
we didn't have to implement, but it's an important budget, albeit an unenviable
one.

As
difficult of this budget is it contains the necessary measures to begin the
difficult process of correcting the province's financial course. The budget
contains a credible plan to do so. I think it's important for us to remind the
people of the province of some of the reasons we're in this predicament now.

Some of
my other colleagues have spoken to this, but it bears repeating. The PCs
delivered six deficits in 12 years. During their governing, oil reached an
all-time peak at $144 US a barrel. This is four times as high as the average
we've seen this year at $35 US. This year we expect only $502 million from
offshore royalties. There were some years during the PC rule where they raked in
$2.1 billion a year in royalties. Their government spending increased at a rate
of 20 to 36 per cent per capita higher than other provinces. Why did they not
save some of this enormous windfall for a rainy day?

If we
hadn't to have taken immediate corrective actions, the debt would have soared to
$27.3 billion in less than a decade. With their mismanagement of funds, the
deficit this year was projected to be $2.7 billion. Thanks to the actions of our
government and, yes, the hard choices made in this budget, that figure is
reduced by a third to $1.8 billion.

We are
committed to reducing the debt. We have a built-in plan to return to a surplus
position by 2023. In order to reduce the deficit and return to surplus, we have
to be efficient. We have to eliminate government waste and reconsider the way we
spend and borrow. We have to be fiscally responsible, as the PCs never were.
Part of being fiscally responsible means not giving up on the people who need
our help the most, the most vulnerable in our society, and our government has no
intentions of giving up on them.

We are
investing $63.7 million annually in the delivery of benefits for those who are
most vulnerable to the revenue measures contained in
Budget 2016. These new benefits will collectively be referred as the
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement. This plan exists because we do not
want to burden low-income individuals and families in our province. These
benefits will be extended to people most in need, such as low-income seniors,
families and persons with disabilities.

The
basis for eligibility will be determined by family net income and we've made
sure that there are no additional barriers or red tape for the vulnerable to
access these benefits. If they filed a tax return and their income is within the
qualifying threshold, they will receive these benefits. There is no extensive,
additional paperwork. Nothing meant to discourage applicants.

These
will be paid in quarterly installments and the amounts will vary depending on
individual circumstances. The first batch of benefits will be paid out in
October and, at that time, eligible individuals and their families will receive
two quarterly installments at one time. It is through this new Income Supplement
that we will demonstrate our commitment to the province's most vulnerable.

We know
seniors are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and many live on
very tight budgets, with limited income levels. We are including provisions in
the budget that will expand existing benefits for low-income seniors. Currently
there are 90,000 seniors in our province, many of whom live in the District of
Exploits. A full 5 per cent of that total is considered low income. These are
the people we're intent on taking care of. This will also be paid in quarterly
installments.

The
total investment for taking care of the most vulnerable in our society is $76.4
million. We are proud to be making this commitment to the people of the
province. Other positive points, if you look at personal income tax rates, the
increase in every tax bracket, combined with the additional tax measures, still
add up to less than what people were paying in 2006-2007.

Don't
misunderstand our meaning here; we do regret that these increases have to
happen. But for media reports to claim that this is a completely unfair attack
on Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers, well, that's simply false. This budget
contains $570 million in infrastructure investments. Those are investments that
will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for years to come that will
keep people working. Included in this is $2 million in new funding to plan for
long-term care in Western and Central regions of the province.

The
temporary Deficit Reduction Levy will generate $126 million per year while other
measures are identified and we begin to see their benefits. This will begin to
be phased out in 2018 or hopefully sooner. We are working to eliminate the waste
and excess spending in the public service so we can protect every single job
possible. Our taxes are lower today than they were in 2006 and before. We have
had to make the right choices, the hard choices. Making the right choices are
not always easy choices, but they are necessary to put our province back on
track.

As
mentioned by one of my colleague mayors, former Mayor Letto, just to touch on a
couple of things with regard to Municipal Affairs, there'll be no reduction in
Municipal Operating Grants to municipalities  good news  and the change to
provincial/municipal cost-sharing ratios and projects will be 90-10, 80-20,
70-30. Initiatives announced as part of the Community Sustainability Partnership
will be maintained, including the sharing of provincial gas tax revenues,
partial HST rebate and regional governance consultations.

Now, I
would like to touch on some issues in the District of Exploits before I move on
and conclude. Granted, the budget contains some distasteful items. No one
disagrees with that, but in our district we've been able to find a way to
continue on with some of the good work that was previously started with several
different projects.

New
infrastructure projects: long-term care central planning, Grand Falls-Windsor;
municipal infrastructure carryover, road upgrading on Beaumont Heights and Hynes
Road in Bishop's Falls; sewer treatment plant, Bishop's Falls; Harry Ivany
Arena, upgrades, Botwood; road improvements, Citizens Drive and Higgins Avenue
in Norris Arm; water main extension for Northern Arm; water systems improvement
for Northern Arm; and, last but not least, the projected continuing of the major
job with the Sir Robert Bond bridge, and that's located in the District of
Exploits, just to name a few.

Earlier
today my good friend, the MHA for St. John's East, mentioned mayors around the
province and the feedback we were getting from those people and their councils
on the budget. I've certainly been a sounding board for many of those people
because I know quite a few of them. Granted, they have the same concerns that
most people in the province have, in that  again, the budget itself was one
that all of us would have preferred not bringing forward to the people but we
had to, okay.

With
that being said, from mayors right on down to church groups, to individuals on
the post office steps, I've taken a lot of abuse and a lot of criticism, and I
know all my colleagues here have. I'm not making anything up when I tell
everybody here that there are quite a few people out there, too, that realize we
have to take that hard road.

They're
disappointed in where we have come at this juncture, but they nod their heads
when I say you know what, the pit is that deep right now, you have every right
in the world to complain about the measures we have to take but if we leave it
alone until three, four years out, it will be like that. The government of the
day, whether it's this government or another government, will have to come
forward with the news and the same people, and rightfully so, will be all over
us and say why didn't you do something to prevent this when you had it there, as
bad as here is.

I just
want to make that point to everybody here tonight and anyone watching, and to
the people of the province. Again, my colleague for St. John's East  Quidi
Vidi, I know she was bringing that forward today in a good, positive light.

I'm
proud to be a former mayor and to be able to serve in this Legislature, and I'm
proud to be serving with each and every one of you. Every time before I came
here  and no offence to anyone else  when I got news that a sitting mayor had
run for a political party for the government of the day or Opposition or
whatever, and that person, he or she, got elected, it gladdened my heart because
they're the front-line people.

This
government and future governments  you've heard me say it before in front of TV
cameras  don't go giving mayors and councillors lip service on the eve of an
election just to be in their good graces in the hopes that it's going to benefit
you. I've seen enough of it. Pay attention to the municipal leaderships, from
the mayors right on down to their councillors. They're good people, the same as
everybody here is. They're there, it is municipal government and they do know,
better than anyone else knows, what's good for the people in each and every town
in this province.

I'll
conclude my remarks. With regard to 24-hour snow clearing, libraries, and the
list goes on, emergency services the other thing I will say before I
leave the mayor issue, is back in our district, Exploits and Grand
Falls-Windsor, we've got a little bit of an overlap there in Grand Falls-Windsor
with myself and Minister Hawkins' district.

For the people that have been thinking maybe we were hiding
away on occasions and stuff like that, I never hid away from anything in my
life. I can assure everybody here tonight, and people who are watching, that
myself and Mayor Hawkins have championed the cause for both of our districts,
inclusive of Grand Falls-Windsor that we share collectively, as well as for
everybody in the province. We want to do good by everyone in this province and
not leave anyone behind.

Again, I'm not hiding. You can visit me at my kitchen table
in Botwood. My phone number is easy to get. Anyone that wants to chat with me,
I'm available at any time. I'm not available on Facebook postings for personal
attacks, but I will talk to anybody and deal with any issue in a civilized way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Now,
on those issues. With regard to the snow clearing and with regard to libraries,
and all the other stuff, and the Hugh Twomey Centre in Botwood with the
unfortunate decision that we've been dealt with on 24-hour emergency services
and stuff. The minister is involved on all those issues. I've been communicating
with them, them with me. They're certainly open-minded and willing to meet again
with any of the mayors and municipal leaders in both of our districts to chat at
length about the logic behind all of these decisions, and open to all kinds of
suggestions or feedback.

So we're
not hiding from that either. I would encourage the municipal leadership to
contact me. I'll go to bat and we'll arrange sessions if we can with the
ministers for each of those departments.

They say
that when you find yourself digging a hole for yourself, you probably should
throw the shovel away. In this case, I would suggest to the people of the
province  again, sometimes you just end up on that lousy end of the stick, but
in this case it wasn't a shovel that we had to throw away, it was an excavator.

I'll
close by saying; sadly, none of us gathered here can bring forward a magic
solution to our woes. Even if we solicited every resident in this province, in
all likelihood the solution would still elude us. So in the absence of King
Solomon's wisdom, we're left to second guess each other, which we've been doing,
when what's really needed is collectively supporting one another to wrestle this
beast to the ground.

I look
forward to trying to resolve the concerns of our people with each and every one
of you.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte  Green Bay.

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,
am grateful for the opportunity to rise in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, to have
a few remarks to Budget 2016. I, too,
will echo what my colleagues have been saying. This is not an easy budget;
nobody expected it to be. It contains many difficult choices, but I do support
the choices that we've made as a government and the challenges that are upon us
as hon. Members in this House.

I
support it, Mr. Speaker, because our deficit has increased so dramatically over
the 12 years of Tory mismanagement. If we did nothing to curtail spending and to
raise revenue, that deficit would be approaching $3 billion for the year. By
2023, we'd nearly double our total debt.

As a
former small business operator, I can tell you that failing to manage debt
properly and failing to budget responsibly is a recipe for ruin, and that's
exactly what has happened here, Mr. Speaker. The former government have
mortgaged Newfoundland and Labrador's future by implementing unwise,
unsustainable tax cuts which went to benefit the wealthiest Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. They increased government spending to levels that would make other
provinces blush.

And why
did they do this? Because they had the oil revenues pouring into our coffers and
they never anticipated the commodity prices would ever drop. Well, we're on the
other side of it now; we're all left with this after the PCs got through with
things. It's a huge deficit and things look grim.

I want
to go back, Mr. Speaker, to a couple of statements that I made in this House of
Assembly in my maiden speech. I'd certainly ask for the Members of this House to
keep it in mind. I said that we must all remember that we stand here in this
place as common people, holding our province's common hopes, our common future
and commission to build a better Newfoundland and Labrador.

The
other part that I spoke to is that we must all embrace the spirit of what it
means to be proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our story is one of
determination and resilience  something that we're faced with today  and often
against the odds in realizing the economic and social potential of this
province. We must believe in ourselves and we must plan together for the
sustainable future. Mr. Speaker, there is no truer statement, what I believe,
than what I just read to the people of this House.

Mr.
Speaker, ever since the budget has been announced I've gone home  my home is in
Springdale, the wonderful District of Baie Verte  Green Bay. I spent a lot of
time actually debating the budget with myself while listening to the radio,
enjoying the ride home and got six hours of lonely time. You think about reasons
why you run, and why I ran. I ran on being open and honest with the people and
the promise that I would be accessible and fair to all parts of my district.

As I
spoke to my good friend, the Member for Cape St. Francis  we sit across from
one another and I look attentively at him. I see his eyes over here, this way,
making sure that I'm paying attention because I talked to him about that. I
really do; I pride myself on being a good listener, Mr. Speaker. I've listened
to the people in my district for the last three weeks. I've had the opportunity
to attend many events.

On the
first weekend, I had the opportunity to go down to Middle Arm and sit in front
of a bunch of hockey players who had just won a championship. I went to bring
greetings and when I got there, I was asked if I would MC the entertainment that
evening. Certainly I took the opportunity to do so. And yes, like us all, I took
many cracks that evening, but, just like my good friend for the District of
Exploits just talked about, I didn't back down either. I have nothing but utmost
respect for the people that I represent and they are certainly welcome to their
opinion, and opinions which I value.

Mr.
Speaker, we've been in office for just 120 days and we've identified, through
our caucus and through the Minister of Finance and our team, $282 million in
savings. That's just our first 120 days in office under the sound, fiscal
management of the Minister of Finance and her officials. That's a very, very
small dent in the deficit, no doubt, but it's the kind of action that is
necessary to bring our financial house back in order.

Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about the team that I sit here with and when I decided
to put my hat in the ring. I looked around at some of the names. I was not sure
if they were all going to get elected, but I looked around at the names of
potential Liberals in this caucus and I was so impressed. We have a great deal
of proud Members on this side and lots of experience, and the experience that I
know that can carry us through.

The
Premier for our province, Mr. Speaker, I have known that gentleman as well for a
long time, and I certainly wanted to be a part of his team. I said it when I was
going throughout my own district that he's a person that I can count on, and if
there was ever someone that I believed could lead us out of the situation that
we were in, I believed that it was our Premier of this province. I say that
again today; I repeat that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARR: Our borrowing targets over
the next seven-year period will require for us to take on some $8.2 billion in
new debt. That may sound like a lot, but if we had given no action, that figure
would have been $17.6 billion.

I think
one of the most encouraging aspects of the budget is that it spells its way out
of surplus. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my grandfather. I
thought my grandfather was a very wise individual and ran our company for a
number of years. There were two things that my grandfather mentioned, and it
stuck with me to this day.

I raised
two young girls and I made them think about that statement every day. That was:
never put off for tomorrow what you can get done today; and look after the
pennies, and the dollars will look after themselves. I've never forgotten those
two statements that were made by grandfather. That's the type of leadership that
he did show to me, and obviously I'd like to pass those on for all Members of
this House to keep in mind.

Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of items with regard to issues that our
friends across the way  like the hon. Member for Gander brought up. I noticed
he was doing a lot of listening as well as to what was being said on the other
side. The one thing I do agree  and again, it comes from my good friend, the
Member for Cape St. Francis. I'm glad he recognized the pressure on MHAs in
larger districts, because he did say that. I come from a district of 42
communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your BFF.

MR. WARR: He's my BFF.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARR: I come from a district that
has 42 communities. There's a lot of pressure on MHAs in larger districts. I
think of the 42 communities, I have 32 fire departments, 35 councils and then
some local service districts. We have 42 series of roads going in and out of
communities. Some of these roads, Mr. Speaker, haven't seen a whole lot of work
in the last few years.

It is
sad to say that some of them may have to be put off again this year. The
Minister of Transportation has advised us that he has $62 million for roads.
That is not a whole lot of money when you look at the vast array around this
province and lots of roadways. Again, Mr. Speaker, we'll have to make do. We've
only got so much money and I don't want to see us in a worse situation.

I want
to talk about the statement that was made from the Member for Topsail 
Paradise. Mr. Speaker, that goes back to he talked about the reduction in
24-hour service. At that particular point in time, he was talking about the
Outer Ring Road.

I say to
my hon. friend that I sat as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Springdale and area Chamber of Commerce. For a number of years we sent letter,
upon letter, upon letter to this government asking why a truck driver  if you
give me a minute to explain  who is coming off a ferry in Port aux Basques has
to leave Port aux Basques on, I'll call it a Tier 2 highway. He leaves Port aux
Basques on a Tier 2 highway  and for those of you who don't know, a Tier 2
highway would receive 50 per cent salt, 50 per cent sand and reduced servicing,
reduced time on our highways.

He goes
from Port aux Basques to Corner Brook. All of a sudden he hits a roadway that
gives him a Tier 1 highway. So from Corner Brook to Deer Lake, now he's getting
100 per cent sand, 100 per cent salt and 24-hour service. Then he leaves Deer
Lake and he moves on as far as Grand Falls. He's on Tier 2 again, going back to
the 50 per cent salt, 50 per cent sand and less maintenance. That goes right
throughout the Island.

We were
adamant as a business community who cared about the people who were travelling
from my hometown, my home district, people of the Baie Verte Peninsula,
travelling to Deer Lake on a continual basis and working in jobs in Alberta.
Nobody cared about these people who were travelling on less-than-adequate
highways until the hon. Member for Topsail  Paradise brings it up because the
Outer Ring Road is not receiving 24-hour care now. Again, I say, Mr. Speaker,
where was that care when we were sending letter upon letter to this previous
government asking for the same thing?

Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk a little bit on the resettlement of the good people of
Little Bay Islands. This is a community that was vibrant and had a wonderful
fishing heritage. There was a time that it was probably one of the largest
communities on the Island.

Little
Bay Islanders are very proud of their heritage. Mr. Speaker, it was announced by
this government that they were sending  and my good friend the Minister of
Municipal Affairs would know this quite well. The former minister of
Transportation was the former premier at the time and he went out to Little Bay
Islands to make an announcement. They certainly thought it was a good-news
announcement.

What it
was, Mr. Speaker, he went out to Little Bay Islands and decided because it was a
four-point system  it was Little Bay Islands to Shoal Arm to Long Island to
Pilley's Island. From Little Bay Islands to Shoal Arm it's a very short run and
a very short run for these people to run to Springdale which was a second home
for them. It was the service centre of the area and that's where they went to
shop.

What the
former premier did, or former minister of Transportation at the time, he went
out and made the announcement they were cancelling out the four-point system and
they were taking Shoal Arm out of it, causing the people from Little Bay Islands
to head over to Pilley's Island, which was a longer ferry ride and then not a
15-minute run to Springdale. We're talking about a 45- to 50-minute run to
Springdale. This is where the resettlement issue came from, Mr. Speaker, because
I will say had that four-point system never been taken from the people of Little
Bay Islands, resettlement would have never raised its ugly head.

Here we
are today with a community that I have a lot of admiration and respect for, Mr.
Speaker, that is in uproar, it is in turmoil, there are neighbours not talking
to one another anymore and it's just completely, completely a shamble. So we've
taken it upon ourselves, as this government, to revisit the resettlement policy
and come back to the good people of Little Bay Islands with a new resettlement
policy a little further down the road.

Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to talk again about my children, and it's all about the
legacy. I talked about I hope they are going to be proud of the good work that
their dad does here in the House of Assembly. And I mean that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARR: I will take a stand in saying
that I want to leave a legacy that I'm proud of, and that this government is
proud of. I don't want the legacy of someone saying the Member for Baie Verte 
Springdale and his team had the opportunity to fix this mess, but they didn't. I
don't want that legacy, Mr. Speaker.

One of
my former school teachers was the hon. premier of the province, A. Brian
Peckford. Mr. Peckford did a lot of good things for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador and the two legacy's he is left is the Atlantic Accord  which is
what he should be remembered for  and then there was the Sprung Greenhouse.
It's unfortunate that the negativity in that legacy about Sprung outweighs the
support of the Atlantic Accord.

Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the things we have  I just want to go to
my district for a second and say that we've lost some things deferred, and as my
time gets closer I'll probably leave those things. I'm just not going to have
enough time to get into that, but I certainly encourage all my friends here to
get on board and support the initiatives of this government.

Mr.
Speaker, it's been a pleasure here to stand for the first time and speak to this
budget, and I look forward to many more times.

Thank
you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to have an opportunity to rise in this hon. House today to talk about
Budget 2016 and to the tremendous work presently being done by the
Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development under this government.

First,
to my constituents in the District of Placentia  St. Mary's, and Trinity South,
this is a difficult time. I know some of you are angry, while some of you
understand what is happening. It is okay to be angry. The resources we acquired
were seriously mismanaged. I'm angry that the roads in our district are
deplorable, while the neighbouring District of Ferryland has some great roads.
I'm angry that some of the projects managed by the previous government in my
district went seriously over budget.

To the
seniors and low-income earners in my district, the Newfoundland and Labrador
supplement will help you get through this difficult time. Come October, when you
receive your first supplement, you will understand what I mean. The Department
of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development has dedicated focus and efforts to
the areas of seniors, adult protection, wellness, recreation and sport, poverty
reduction and the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

For
2016-17, the department has a dedicated budget of over $20 million, and a total
of 41 full-time employees. With these resources, the department will be taking a
proactive, preventative and integrated approach to healthy living. We want to
help people live healthier, more equitable and inclusive lives by addressing
social and economic factors from the earliest stages of life across the
lifespan.

Mr.
Speaker, in the years ahead under this budget, we will advance a number of
important initiatives, both through the department directly and through funding
and otherwise, supporting community organizations to deliver programs within the
community. We will work with community organizations, Mr. Speaker. After all,
community organizations are on the ground with the people every day.

In
advancing these initiatives, we will be guided by my mandate letter from the
Premier. We are already taking steps towards fulfilling specific initiatives
contained in that letter. Planning work has already begun on the development of
the healthy promotion and healthy living strategy.

This
year, we will work in collaboration with the Department of Health and Community
Services towards this strategy. The strategy will include implements and
elements supporting health promotion, healthy living programs and early
intervention initiatives. Part of my mandate is to implement programs to
facilitate healthy lifestyles and youth wellness, including promotion of healthy
eating habits, offering wellness coaching in schools and implementing
anti-smoking programs.

We will
do that under this budget, Mr. Speaker. These are key areas of focus.
Budget 2016 provides funding that will
allow non-profit, community-based organizations to provide services in these
areas, in addition to programs and services that our department currently
provides or will develop.

To
support healthy living activities in the year ahead, $5.9 million in this budget
is provided for community-based organizations and agencies that are advocates
for health and healthy living. I will give you some examples, Mr. Speaker.

The Kids
Eat Smart Foundation, which receives just over $1 million in annual funding to
support Kids Eat Smart Clubs throughout the province. Kids Eat Smart Clubs
provide breakfast and/or snacks in 226 schools and in 21 community centres
across Newfoundland and Labrador. Each and every school day, these clubs provide
over 23,000 meals to school-age children every school day with the assistance of
more than 6,000 volunteers and nine full-time staff, Mr. Speaker.

We are
providing funding to Food First NL to work with communities and organizations to
find solutions and advance access to healthy food. We are providing additional
funding to Food First NL to support the healthy eating online resource centre
which was launched in March of 2016 under this budget, Mr. Speaker. This is a
user-friendly inventory of up-to-date and reliable healthy eating resources.

Mr.
Speaker, we will also provide funding to support the Newfoundland and Labrador
Injury Prevention Coalition which provides information and education to promote
safety and prevent injuries.

Budget 2016
provides for other healthy living initiatives. Through Recreation NL, we support
the Eat Great and Participate program, which promotes healthy eating habits
among children and youth in recreation, sport and community settings. Through
this program, healthy eating policies have already been implemented in five
provincial sport organizations. Eat Great and Participate continues to work with
another 13 provincial sport organizations that are in the process of developing
and implementing similar policies.

Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2016 provides many
funds. Budget 2016 provides $1.84
million for the Community Healthy Living Fund, which will support initiatives,
programs and projects focused on healthy living, recreation, physical activity
and wellness at the community level. This fund provides support for the
development of active and healthy living environments. Funding is available to
retrofit and renovate existing facilities that are used for recreation and
sport.

In this
budget, we are also available to fund small infrastructure costs that increase
use, lower operating costs, improve safety and increase accessibility. The
purchase of small equipment that promotes physical activity and initiatives that
promote healthy eating are also eligible under this program.

In
Budget 2016, more than $1 million will
support initiatives for healthy living and increase physical activities in
school-age children. Participation of over 200 schools in Participation Nation
programs, which are non-competitive physical activity after-school programs
offered to school-age children.

It also
includes support for the continued promotion and implementation of the Healthy
School Planner by schools and their stakeholders; and, in particular, the
completion of the physical activity module which will help schools identify gaps
and opportunities to increase physical activity levels of their students in the
school environment. And it includes funding to support ongoing communication and
resources to raise awareness in education on the importance of daily physical
activity. There are many positive things in
Budget 2016, Mr. Speaker.

Smoking
cessation; to support our overarching goal of healthy living, we are placing a
more significant focus on smoking prevention and cessation programs; $250,000 of
new funding in this budget is provided through the Seniors, Wellness and Social
Development to help individuals quit smoking. This is in addition to funding
provided through the Department of Health and Community Services for smoking
cessation efforts aimed at people with a low income. This year, new funding will
help to expand and enhance programs.

During
the election, we committed to implementing anti-smoking actions and providing
support for organizations that offer smoking cessation programs. Mr. Speaker,
over the years, significant progress has been made in the area of tobacco
control in Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, smoking rates have declined
for various age groups, in particular, the youth, Mr. Speaker. Second-hand smoke
bans in public places are extensive. Retail compliance rates restricting the
sale of tobacco products to underage youth are high. The display and promotion
bans of tobacco products at retail decrease the visibility in advertising of
tobacco to youth.

Despite
these successes, however, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to have one of the
highest smoking rates in the country, with approximately over 100,000 people
continuing to use tobacco. Youth are still experimenting with tobacco and
starting to smoke, and many individuals continue to be addicted to tobacco,
costing our health care system millions of dollars annually.

Mr.
Speaker, this government recognizes that tobacco use remains the most
preventable cause of disease and premature death. For that reason, our
government is committed to protecting people, particularly children and youth,
from the proven health risk of tobacco use. This rationale of such a priority is
very clear, Mr. Speaker.

Further
action is required to prevent and reduce tobacco use in our province. Mr.
Speaker, we intend to fund actions that will be based on evidence, provincial
data, research, best practices, monitoring trends and emerging issues.

Sport
and recreation: Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult time, but we remain committed
to supporting our province's athletes as we encourage every citizen in the
province to choose a healthy, active lifestyle. This provincial government will
continue to support our athletes through several initiatives, including the
Athletic Excellence Fund, coaching, Canada Games funding and annual grants to
provincial sport organizations. Investment in our athletes and in recreational
opportunities for all citizens in indeed worthwhile, Mr. Speaker; we need that
investment for our physical well-being and our mental well-being.

Sport
and recreation opportunities provide valuable life lessons and skills,
particularly for our young people. Leadership, teamwork, these are valuable
skills and values that sport and recreation activities can help to instill in
our young people, that they can use throughout their lives and working careers.
Mr. Speaker, our government, we identify these needs.

Mr.
Speaker, by 2025, 25 per cent of our population will be seniors. We will work to
ensure that we are meeting current demands and prepare for our rapidly aging
population. One of our election commitments was to establish an office of the
seniors' advocate. The need to establish a seniors' advocate office has been
broadly identified as we campaigned throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, from
individual members of the public, seniors' organizations such as the Seniors
Resource Centre of Newfoundland and Labrador and the 50+ Federation.

Since
taking on this role as the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development,
I have met with these organizations and my provincial advisory council to
confirm what we heard. These groups also raise the need for awareness and
education of existing resources available to seniors in this province.
Budget 2016 has committed $250,000 in
2016-17 to establish an independent office of the seniors' advocate, with an
annual budget of $500,000 beginning in 2017-18.

Of this
year's funding, $100,000 will go toward increasing public awareness of the
programs and services which currently exist for seniors. Mr. Speaker, seniors
asked for this initiative, and we are listening to them by delivering it. Mr.
Speaker, the seniors' advocate will be a strong, independent voice for
Newfoundland and Labrador seniors as we look to address system-wide issues which
impact older adults.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's a luxury.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: It is not a luxury.

This
year's budget also provides funding of $300,000 for the Seniors Resource Centre
to enhance its information and referral system for seniors and their families.
We will work in partnership with the Seniors Resource Centre.

We
remain committed to working with communities to improve transportation options
for seniors so they can not only access health care services more readily but
participate more fully in their communities. A three-year pilot project
involving five projects, which began in June 2012, has been completed. The pilot
is currently being evaluated, with a view to informing future programming in
this area.

Three
hundred thousand dollars from this budget has been provided this year for
age-friendly transportation services while this evaluation is ongoing. A hundred
thousand dollars in Budget 2016 will
support continued development of age-friendly communities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.

Budget 2016
also provides funding for a new director of adult protection who will be
responsible for the well-being of adults in need of protection under the
Adult Protection Act and the ongoing
development, implementation and monitoring of adult protection, regulations and
policy.

Mr.
Speaker, as the mother of 20-year-old, non-verbal son, I personally understand
the importance and value of this role. The
Adult Protection Act legislation impacts all adults, regardless of living
arrangements, who lack capacity to understand and appreciate risk and may be
abused and/or neglected.

The act
also includes an outline of the role and responsibilities of a provincial
director of adult protection. The provincial director of adult protection is
responsible for the care and custody of adults who lack capacity and are abused
or neglected, as well as having responsibility for the consultation on reports,
evaluations and investigations and
overall administration of this legislation.

Mr.
Speaker, the director of aging and seniors originally assumed the role of the
director of adult protection; however, during the first 12 months of
implementation of the Adult Protection Act
there were 258 reports, with 22 proceeding to investigation.

Responsibilities related to the Adult
Protection Act have increased over the past two years. They are expected to
further increase as the population ages and the legislation continues to raise
awareness and increase accountabilities at the regional level. In addition, we
are seeing more complex cases which require substantial assessment and
attention.

Mr.
Speaker, the establishment of the director of adult protection position will
provide better protection and it will reduce risks to adults who may be or are
in need of protection. Other Atlantic provinces have a full-time provincial
director responsible for adult protection. This will bring us in line with other
comparable jurisdictions.

The
Budget Speech also highlighted the fact that as a province we must foster a
supportive and inclusive environment which ensures all residents are able to
live, work and participate in their communities. Mr. Speaker, there are numerous
barriers for an inclusive environment. As the Minister Responsible for the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, I will not knowingly speak at a venue that
is not accessible.

This
government will lead by example. Our aim is to enhance the inclusion of persons
with disabilities in all aspects of society, including access to economic,
social and cultural opportunities on an equal basis with others. Our government
is firmly committed to supporting, promoting and encouraging a fully inclusive
society whereby everyone has an equal opportunity for a successful, productive
life.

Part of
my mandate is to work with organizations and community stakeholders to achieve a
more inclusive Newfoundland and Labrador. Our work is ongoing as we review
existing legislation and regulations in this province and move towards enacting
a new inclusion-based disabilities act. We expect to have this provincial
inclusion-based disability act within four years. Legislation that mandates
standards for customer service, communication, information-built environment,
transportation, employment and products is already in place in some other
provinces.

Mr.
Speaker, our focus will be on finding the best solution for our province, a
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador legislation that addresses what is best for
our communities and our province. We are allocating in this budget $450,000 for
capacity grants for inclusion resources and training and improved accessibility,
as well as $400,000 to help individuals in the taxi industry acquire or adapt
vehicles for accessibility.

To help
provide greater access to activities that support healthy living, $150,000 is
provided to continue recreation sport development initiatives for persons with
disabilities.

Poverty
reduction: As was noted in the Budget Speech, our government aims to ensure the
impact of the fiscal reality is lessened on the most vulnerable. Our government
is committed to supporting measures to prevent, reduce and alleviate poverty.
Budget 2016 invests over $240 million
in initiatives to support people with low income  $240 million.

New
investments include $76.4 million annualized in a new Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement, a new disability benefit and enhancements to the Seniors'
Benefit. These benefits are paid directly to low-income individuals and families
and are designed to mitigate tax increases; $2.5 million to address homelessness
by increasing the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing's Supportive
Living Program to $7.6 million; $3 million to increasing the monthly fuel
allowance for eligible Income Support clients. We are analyzing income and other
data as well as information from the community about people in low income to
identify gaps in programs and services and priority areas for future focus.

Mr.
Speaker, I, along with the executive and the staff of the Department of Seniors,
Wellness and Social Development are strongly committed to addressing some of the
very important social issues we face in society today. As a minister and the MHA
for the District of Placentia  St. Mary's, and Trinity South, I am working with
my staff to ensure that all people in the province are equal, included,
supported and empowered to achieve their full potential and well-being. We
cannot and we will not kick this deficit into the future. It is our children and
our children's children who will suffer if we do not govern. We will work
towards a stronger tomorrow.

The
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and Seniors' Benefit will help
individuals and families with lower incomes get through this difficult time in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are making history. We are in a
financial situation never seen before in history for a population of just over
500,000 people. We will learn from these errors made by the previous
administration, and we will save for the future. The children and youth of this
province should have an opportunity to grow, thrive and succeed right here at
home.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte  Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, other than doing
a few Member's statements, this is my first opportunity to address the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador through this medium. I would like to congratulate all
hon. Members who have been re-elected and continue to serve this great province.
And to a few of those who are like myself, serving this district and the
province for the first time, I look forward to working with each of you during
our term in office. It is a great privilege to be here in this hon. House of
Assembly as the Member for the beautiful and scenic District of Lewisporte 
Twillingate.

Before I
speak on the budget, I would like to begin by thanking my entire campaign team,
all the volunteers who worked so diligently with me during my election. To my
family, friends and supporters throughout the district that took the time to go
out and vote, I'd like to offer my heartfelt appreciation. You have trusted me
to represent you as your Member in the House of Assembly and I'll do everything
possible to fulfill your expectations and represent you to the best of my
ability.

It gives
me great pleasure to stand here tonight to speak on
Budget 2016. First of all, I want to express my appreciation to the
Cabinet ministers, our Premier, the Minister of Finance and her entire team for
all of the hours they have put into preparing this document. I'm sure there have
been many long days and nights. I know your job wasn't easy.

Mr.
Speaker, over the past couple of weeks I've had the opportunity to review and
study the budget, listen to the debates and the opinions of people throughout
the province. I'm not happy about raising taxes, fee increases or cutting
services. I'm sure no one on this side of the House is happy about those things.
However, I believe we are on the right course of action for our province. I do
not want to continue to lead this province to financial ruin, or leave a
financial burden for my children and future generations to deal with.

Currently, 11.6, almost $1 billion of our total expenditures are going into
interest payments on our debt. I do not want to be responsible for being a part
of any government that allows this deficit to snowball out of control. I'm glad
to serve in a government that has the courage to take the necessary steps to
deal with the problems, address the issues, even if some decisions are
unpopular.

No tax
increase, loss of service or layoff is ever popular; our government is committed
to tackling the challenges head-on. Budget 2016 contains difficult measures and tough choices but doing
nothing was not an option, not when you're faced with a potential deficit of
$2.7 billion this year.

Like my
colleagues on both sides of the House, I've heard from my constituents. I've
been receiving emails, telephone calls, Facebook messages and personal business
from constituents throughout the district. People are angry and upset with this
budget. They have addressed their concerns about the tax levy and the fee
increases, and I'm sure you have all seen the same distress.

Business
owners in Twillingate-New World Island are concerned of the potential impact
that a gas tax may have on the tourism industry, the largest industry in this
region of the district. However, based on current rates, combined with the gas
tax, you will still be paying less for fuel than you did last summer.

I have
expressed these concerns to Cabinet members and our caucus. I am committed to
working with the people of my district and our government to get us through
these tough times. Over this past weekend I had a lengthy conversation with two
ladies who worked at the Advanced Education and Skills office in Twillingate.
The office closed Friday past. Fortunately, employees will be able to exercise
their bumping rights and will be employed in other offices throughout Central
Newfoundland. Although the workers are troubled by the longer commutes to work,
they were more concerned with the loss of service to the area and the impact it
will have on the people who they worked with over the past number of years.

Local
residents have built a relationship of trust and confidence with these client
services officers and were comforted in knowing that their needs were being
addressed. I, too, share these concerns; however, I am confident that
arrangements are being made to assist the people in need of services.

In
addition to the recent news of the library closures, one will affect a community
in my district. The Town of Summerford's public library is scheduled to close
next season. The residents of that community have my commitment that if the town
is interested in keeping the books, furniture and continuing with the service, I
will work with community's leaders and volunteers to maintain this service
within their community.

To
further add to the concern in my district, in March of 2015, the fish plant in
Cottlesville was destroyed by fire and, sadly, it will not be rebuilt. This has
resulted in a huge economic blow to the entire region. I am working closely with
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
They have assured me there is money allotted in the budget to assist these
workers affected by the devastating fire. I will continue to work with the Town
of Cottlesville to expedite this process so that the displaced workers will gain
employment while we explore options of diversification for our economy and
retrain the people affected.

Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend Minister Bennett for giving each MHA the
opportunity to meet one-on-one to discuss the issues they are facing in their
districts, and for clarifying items in the budget so we can provide accurate
information and reduce the misleading comments that are being made. Although
Budget 2016 does result in tax
increases and some closures, it's not all doom and gloom. The 2016 budget also
contains a lot of good things as well.

Before
being elected in November, I worked with the Town of Lewisporte for the past 25
years. My professional background in recreation, tourism and municipal
infrastructure has given me a great knowledge of community development,
especially in rural communities.

Both the
recreation and tourism industry have a tremendous, positive impact on our
communities. There are a number of commitments in this budget that are very
encouraging from my perspective. There is $1.84 million for programs and
projects focused on recreation, active living and wellness. There's over $1
million allocated to support initiatives that encourage healthy living, physical
activity among school-age children.

There's
close to $500,000 committed for programs that focus on health eating, physical
activity and mental health promotions. There's $350,000 in the budget that
supports smoking cessation programs and services. An additional $0.5 million
allocated for community-based organizations and agencies that provide healthy
living programs and services.

Through
my work with the Town of Lewisporte, and also serving as president of Recreation
Newfoundland and Labrador, I have personally seen the benefits of these
programs. I have worked closely with my community and the region to promote
healthy eating and physical activity. I encourage all hon. Members to promote
these initiatives throughout their own districts.

I firmly
believe that if we all do a little more to get our children and youth more
physically active, set good examples and instill in them the joy and benefits of
being physically active, if we can get them to continue this throughout their
lives it will greatly reduce our high rates of obesity, heart disease and mental
illness, in addition to reducing the stress and increasing costs on our medical
services.

Mr.
Speaker, this government realized the importance of inclusion and making our
communities more accessible. There's funding in this budget for the upgrading
and the accessibility at our Arts and Culture Centres. This will enable
residents, regardless of ability or impairment, to be able to enjoy the great
performances of our talented musicians and actors. There is funding for
recreation and sport development initiatives for persons in our province with
disabilities.

Almost
$220 million is allocated in major capital costs for tourism, culture and
recreation. This may not be all new money, but it reinforces our government's
commitment to these projects; $4.2 million for the construction of a new pool
house at Bowring Park. We are continuing on the commitment of $38.5 million to
build a recreation facility to replace the existing Wedgewood Park facility.
This will include a lap pool, a leisure pool, a gym, community rooms, a senior
centre and more. This facility is scheduled for completion this year. There is
$2.4 million allocated for a sports centre expansion which includes a
7,000-square-foot area to accommodate active start programs for preschool-age
children.

These
commitments affirm that our government takes health and recreation seriously. We
recognize its value in strengthening and promoting healthy communities. The
programs and services help to ensure that residents of all ages have the
opportunity to be physically and mentally active in a safe environment.

This
budget also provides significant support to our seniors; $250,000 to establish
an office of the seniors' advocate. This was a commitment we made during the
campaign because we believe our seniors deserve an independent voice in
government. A seniors' advocate is not a luxury, it's a necessity.

There is
an additional $300,000 allocated for the Seniors Resource Centre, aimed at
enhancing its information and referral systems so that seniors will have a place
to visit or call if they have any issues or concerns, or if they would like to
see what is happening within our province.

There's
$3.5 million in the budget that will support placing selected individuals with
enhanced care needs into personal care homes. We have another $300,000 set aside
for age-friendly transportation services. These funds will provide seniors with
the opportunity to attend medical appointments, do their shopping or just
socialize with family and friends.

We
recognize seniors in our province are living on very low incomes and we
recognize that the fee increases and revenue measures in this budget may impact
these individuals more severely. That's why there are increases to our Seniors'
Benefit and why there is a new quarterly Income Supplement. Eligible seniors
will receive benefits from both of these programs.

Mr.
Speaker, our government is investing close to $600 million in infrastructure
spending in this budget. Infrastructure is an investment that benefits
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for years, even decades to come. Work will
include: $63.7 million for the widening and paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway


SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:  $13.5 million for vessel
retrofit; $61.6 million for heavy equipment and ice control, along with many
other projects that will benefit communities throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.

Mr.
Speaker, if we did nothing to address the deficit, a deficit that would expand
into $2.7 billion this year alone, Newfoundland and Labrador's future would be
very grim  $2.7 billion.

If
interest payments became the largest expenditure in this budget, that means
there's less money to take care of our seniors, less money to fund recreation
programs, less money to spend on educating our children and less money to put
into our health care. Revenue measures ensure that we do not have to face that
day when interest fees cause further cutbacks in these important services. There
is a clear and credible plan for our province to return to a surplus position in
less than a decade. Being back into surplus position means we will be able to
invest more in our province and more into our province's future.

Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, none of us, not one single Member sitting on this
side of the hon. House, is taking this budget lightly. None of us, if we had a
choice, would ever want to make the decisions that are being made.
Unfortunately, some tough decisions have to be made. We all, no matter what
political party you represent, we have to work together for the best interest of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hope
and I encourage people in my district to go online and read the budget. Feel
free to contact my constituency assistant, Brent or myself, about the budget and
let's talk about it.

Debate
on the budget will continue over the next number of days and weeks. We talk
about the budget so everybody has a full understanding of what's in it and why
we do the things we have to do, but it also gives us the opportunity to address
the concerns of our constituents and provides opportunity for amendments if
deemed necessary.

In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I know part of this budget is not popular with many people
in my district, and I respect each and everyone's opinions. The budget is not
about votes or popularity. It's about what's best for our province.

I stand
with the understanding and the reassurance from our government that when passed
the tax levy will begin to be phased out no later than 2018. That the gas tax
will be reviewed on a regular basis so it can be reduced and that these revenue
generators, along with other cost-saving initiatives, will help to reduce or
eliminate the loss of other services. Reducing the deficit is the first critical
step in returning Newfoundland and Labrador to a path of prosperity and
sustainability, instead of leaving our children with a financial mess that we
are facing today.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island  Cape Freels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to speak on the budget, but before I
do, I think I should note I had a meeting this past weekend down in one of my
districts in the community who are facing a cut. I talked to the people there. I
told them I spent 30 years of my life leading up to this point, doing the best I
could, doing everything I could for the people in my area.

I was
the fire chief, the recreation director and an avid volunteer in the community.
So I'd like to think for 30 years I did so much to help so many people around
our area, and then we get into this budget where you would hope to do more.
We're not really placed in a position where we're going to do a lot more to help
people financially because we're faced with almost a $2 billion deficit. But
hopefully, over the course of time, we can make this a little better.

I, like
many others, will be facing cutbacks in the coming weeks and months for our
districts, and we're going to face a lot more of that. We're going to get this
budget and we're going to get through it, but we have to clean up this financial
mess.

All of
the things I've worked so hard for I feel got torn down. I really got to thank
the Members opposite for giving me the opportunity to get to the bottom of the
barrel and try to find my way back up, because of the over spending and
everything else that has left us in this position. Right now, let's just hope
and look forward  and this is the path to leading forward.

Under
the leadership of our Premier and our Finance Minister, let's hope we get in the
right direction. Contrary to a lot of beliefs, we offer competitive rates in
this province. Our seniors and low-income workers will come out better off at
the end of the day with a cheque coming in every three months.

I'm
going to back up, because I come from a background in municipal financing and a
town in which we were required to do a balanced budget. If only the government
legislated us to have a balanced budget. It's too bad legislation wasn't there
to force the governments before us to have a balanced budget because we'd never
be in this situation today.

Last
year, if you remember, everybody just about lost their minds over the assessed
values of their properties and how they went up so fast. A lot of towns will
tell you it's a great opportunity for a quick chance for taxes, and people were
saying it's too high. There was that much upheaval over it, it made it into the
Speech from the Throne that we're going to address the assessed value. Dealing
with it for all those years, I understood what it meant. Towns had to modify
their assess value rate, the mill rate, to lower the  the tax amount will be
the same, just one would offset the other.

It was
easy to see when you did it for years, Mr. Speaker, but for a lot of people it
was beyond belief because their house went from a $200,000 value to a $400,000
value, which meant people believed their taxes were going to double. So I guess
that's where I'm sort of leading up into our levy. A lot of people are under the
impression that our levy is going to be a lot more taxes. Little did we know
that anybody under $20,000, under this levy, will not be paying the $300 as was
anticipated.

Mr.
Speaker, a lady in Greenspond always had a saying: wonderful bad. It used to
raise a smile, wonderful bad, and this is a wonderful bad situation we find
ourselves in.

We have
issues where we talk about billions of dollars, so much that we don't even
realize what a billion dollars is anymore. Every time someone opens their mouth
it's a billion dollars for this and a billion dollars for that. Years ago a
million dollars seemed to be a lot of money, and now we talk about billions like
it's absolutely nothing. We are in a serious financial mess. Our job is to get
the message out. We have to get the message out to our constituents of the
situation we are in. It's easy for everyone to say we're going too fast, too
hard, but we're in a situation where something has to be done.

Our new
tax levy is going to be a source of revenue. This is much debated. Members
opposite, Members of the Third Party, us on this side, we've all felt it on
social media. Everyone was quick to like a bad comment on there.

This
morning we were given a stat which said 38 per cent of the residents will not
even pay the minimum; 43 per cent in this province will pay less than $340. So,
in total, 81 per cent of this province will pay less than $340 per year into the
levy; $76.4 million will be spent to support seniors. In addition, we're going
to spend $63.7 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG: And $23 million on the Team
Gushue Highway; $9.3 million on the lift bridge in Placentia; $5 million on
heavy equipment so that we can maintain our roadwork and everything else; $13.5
million on vessel repair and refits. I got to say, that's of particular interest
to me, because I come from a district where the ferry service is very important
to a part of my district.

Right
now we need a good system to keep our ferry going. So I'm glad to see
Transportation has put in $13.5 million for refit. We just had a $50 million
boat, and if anyone ever watched the news, you'll see our boat is hanging out
downtown. She's not servicing the public. It's of great concern. It's of much
debate for the minister and me.

Because
of that $50 million boat, we are trying to repair a 50-year-old boat to put back
in service. Now that seems to be a step back, but a 50-year-old boat actually
would offer better service. So thanks to the refit money, we hopefully will get
that boat going up and soon.

Right
now we're dealing with a smaller boat trying to do  I think the boat, now
someone can correct me, can carry somewhere in excess of 30 cars, whereas the
new one can do 60. So to say that the boat and crew are taxed to the max would
be an understatement.

Another
commitment of this government is to the municipalities. Again, I have a strong
background in municipalities. The MOG, Municipal Operating Grant, is being
maintained again this year. That, I'm sure, comes to much relief of many of the
municipalities in this province.

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador worked hard with PMA and the Department
of Municipal Affairs over the last number of years to work on a good fiscal
framework for the towns. So we've secured  and I'd say they secured  the MOG
which will be used for much of the maintenance in town, from salaries to garbage
collection, to water and sewer, to repairs, to road maintenance. So that is a
great thing to see.

There's
going to be $72.7 million in capital works. For lots of our infrastructure, it's
crumbling. Lots of it was put in shortly after the war or shortly after
Confederation, lots of it was put in. So we have a crumbling infrastructure that
needs to be addressed. I'm sure the $72 million, if I talked to the minister
over there for Municipal Affairs, he'd probably tell me he needs $172 million to
come up with  but $72 million at least is put into it. With the 90-10
share for most of the towns not being changed, I'm sure that comes as much
relief in this year's budget.

In my district is the fishery. The fishery is very, very
prominent in my district. Right now we're working on the LIFO program, which is
the Last In, First Out. We're working adamantly with the federal department on
that. Our Fogo Island fish plant deals with the shrimp in my area, and I have
numerous fishermen that are involved in the fishery. I would think in my area
you're looking at in excess of 60 per cent of the employed people get their
money or employment through the fishery. We have numerous tourism sites. If you can start on the Barbour site
down in Newtown, you can go to Fogo Island with as many scenic attractions. We
have day parks. We have weekend parks. We have parks all over the place. We have
beautiful sandy beaches. We have places for people to come and go to.

I
apologize for my throat, Mr. Speaker, but I can't get over the flu.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some bad isn't it, b'y?

MR. BRAGG: Yeah, I'm dried right out
now.

We're
looking at $5 million that we're going to put into Arts and Culture Centres. Mr.
Speaker, $1.46 million is going to the former American radar site in Hopedale.
They're going to replace the T'Railway bridge in Terra Nova for $530,000.

My
Member up in Torngat Mountains will be happy to hear that we're going to have
$351,000 for the Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy. He jokes with me
often and tells me he's never going to look for pavement.

There's
$8.13 million for renovations to wharfs and ferry terminals, another very
important thing. We have the boat; we need the terminal for it and that is very
important, that the infrastructure is put in place.

Mr.
Speaker, $62 million for provincial roads and brush clearing. I heard the hon.
minister say he needed a billion dollars to satisfy all those needs. So we may
not be getting it all at the one time; we're picking at it one piece at a time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're prioritizing.

MR. BRAGG: We're prioritizing is exactly
right.

Overall,
there's $226 million going into transportation infrastructure and $344 million
in municipal infrastructure programs. Through it all, I do believe that this
budget, although it has some negative aspects, the positives by far outweigh the
negative.

I look
forward to getting up and having the opportunity to speak in this House once
again. It's great to serve the residents of my District of Fogo Island  Cape
Freels.

Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity to speak to Budget 2016
on the non-confidence motion. I will say that I believe the Opposition and the
Third Party continue to underestimate the seriousness of the situation that
we're facing here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we
look at the unprecedented deficit that we have at $1.8 billion and had we not
made the difficult decisions that we had to make in the budget and kept going
down the path of the former administration, the deficit would be at $2.7
billion. Over a short period of time, it would have happened that our entire net
debt over the last 66 years would have been amassed in just five years. Just
completely unsustainable.

The
previous Member opposite, the Member for St. John's Centre, got up and talked
about the great job the Government of Alberta is doing when it comes to their
budget and how they're taking care of the economy. Well, unfortunately,
Newfoundland and Labrador was not in a position that Alberta was, in the ability
to be able to borrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: The Alberta government
borrowed over $10 billion in terms of their deficit they have. That impacted
them automatically from their AAA rating 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:  for the bond-rating
agencies, it went down to an AA rating. If we have not taken the decisions that
we had to make  we could not continue to borrow. Borrowing at an unsustainable
level would impact our credit rating and that would further make the situation
worse.

Right
now, we're spending more on debt servicing than in education for our children.
Our government clearly believes in economic diversification. Our government
believes the answer to building a stronger economy is through diversification,
job growth and creation of new jobs.

So
innovation is one of those areas that we will be focused on. We've already
started work on a new provincial innovation strategy in collaboration with the
industry and innovation partners to drive economic growth and focus on ways of
which we can measure advanced innovation, productivity and competitiveness,
because that's completely key.

When we
talk about competitiveness, we also have to talk about the measures that are in
budget 2016 and 2017. We have to make sure that our personal income tax is
competitive. It is in the Atlantic counterparts and in other parts of the
country. When we include a levy and we look at the rates of taxation, where they
were in 2006 and where they are today, they are very comparable. Actually, when
you look at that across all income levels between the $10,000 and $250,000
level, in Newfoundland and Labrador people will pay between $233 and $5,000 less
in personal income tax, including the levy, than what they paid in 2006.

In
Budget 2016 we're investing in
broadband. This is highly critical. We're going to reallocate $2 million for
broadband infrastructure. We're going to work with the private sector and the
federal government. Through their Connecting Canadians program, they have $500
million. So we're going to be very strategic in looking at leveraging dollars to
put in broadband infrastructure. Currently, we have a high amount of the
population that has access to broadband, but we certainly want to reach all
communities that currently do not have access.

When it
comes to social enterprise, we realize and recognize the value the social
enterprise and non-profit sector plays, and we're leading a development in the
social enterprise strategy to enhance the benefits of that sector of the
economy. We're growing our forestry and our agriculture opportunities, and in
Budget 2016 we've lived up to the
commitment of allocating $60,000 to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Agriculture so that we can help them in terms of growing the industry with their
stakeholders and capitalizing on provincial and federal opportunities.

We've
done a lot of research and development when it comes to agriculture, looking at
the winter wheat program that we currently have in place, looking at
opportunities in which we're growing grapes and other fruits here in the
province. We certainly have a climate that allows that and has that opportunity.

We're
engaging with stakeholders for new entrants, such as when I addressed the egg
and chicken farmers at their AGM this week. We're talking to the industries;
we're talking to people who are involved in business as to how they can upscale
and how they can create new opportunities. When we look at what we want to do in
terms of a food security and agriculture growth strategy, we've had stakeholder
discussions with farmers and also 22 stakeholder groups on this discussion
already. The work is being done.

When we
look at Newfoundland and Labrador and our economy of only having 500,000 people,
we have significant riches when it comes to our natural resources, when it comes
to our business community, when it comes to the human capital that we have in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and where we have opportunity for exceptional growth
is through trade. We have a lot of opportunity in trade, and we're currently
negotiating the agreement on internal trade.

When it
comes to reducing barriers for interprovincial trade across this great country
of ours, across Canada we also have and we're working through the finalization
of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Canada-European trade
agreement, CETA.

We're
also working through TPP. These opportunities present tremendous potential for
firms in Newfoundland and Labrador when we look at the shipping opportunities to
Europe, whether it be through our Argentia or St. Anthony or looking at the
containerized shipping that can go into Canada from the St. John's marketplace.

If we
look at trade as well, we have an MOU with Nunavut and we look at the
opportunities in the North and the interprovincial trade that could happen with
Greenland. We had a delegation of 15 people from Nunavut come here and talk
about the opportunities. That was further followed up with our partners in the
board of trade.

I'm very
pleased that the Minister of Environment and Conservation attended that and
further talked about the opportunities and the investments that this government
is making in the North, whether it be in the Trans-Labrador Highway or whether
it be looking at a feasibility study for a fixed link. These are all things that
this government is doing when it talks about making strategic investments in the
economy for the long term.

We're
also looking at the fishery and looking at making investments there. We have
lived up to our obligations for the advisory council on seafood, and also
looking at making sure that we're able to get investment into the fisheries. We
certainly will work towards establishing a fisheries investment fund, something
that this former administration completely failed to do, failed to deliver and
was unable to be successful in putting upwards of $400 million in our fishing
industry.

We're
also looking at our high-growth firms. When we look at driving economic growth
and the agenda, we look at start-ups; we look at new technology in those
enterprises, access to venture capital and promotion of research and
development. The budget has millions and millions of dollars for R & D through
the Research & Development Corporation. It continues to commit on venture
capital. We've made investments this year, since becoming government, in venture
capital and new jobs that are created in the tech sector, in our tourism and
cultural sectors and heritage.

To
support economic diversification, the
Budget 2016 has a continued investment of $13 million for tourism marketing.
And actually when you look at tourism right now  and I heard Members talk about
having some concern about the tourism market, but right now I've been talking to
people in the industry, the accommodators and the bus tour operators. Looking at
our own statistics, our website is up 16 per cent, the traffic is at
www.newfoundlandandlabrador.com.
People are engaged and we're seeing bookings enhanced. We will have a strong
tourism season this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: We also are investing $18.5
million to support culture and heritage and the arts communities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. We see the value and the importance of doing so and
that's why we retain that commitment of $18.5 million for film, for writing, for
productions, for museums, for all sorts of opportunity to support those involved
as we develop the status of the artist act.

There
are 2,500 businesses involved in the province's tourism sector, of which 82 per
cent is small business creating 18,000 jobs. When it comes to regional economic
development, we recognize the critical importance of making strategic
investments to advance the development and diversification of all regions, both
in urban and the rural economy, and directing limited government resources to
where they will have the greatest impact.

In fact,
we have $8.5 million in a Regional Development Fund which we will use to
leverage other federal, municipal, non-profit and other dollars. One of the
recent examples that we've done is that we've provided an investment of $490,000
to support the expansion of the St. John's Farmers' Market. It supports craft
producers, local artisans from the entire region, not just the City of St.
John's.

It also
looks to contribute to the province culturally, socially and economically. We've
also funded the Newfoundland & Labrador Snowmobile Federation to do an economic
impact study to look at the value of recreation and snowmobiling, the actual
impact that it has on Newfoundland and Labrador.

We look
at the infrastructure that's in the budget; this budget has $570 million for
infrastructure to look after things like roads in our province, to look after
investments that we have to do for municipalities, major investments that will
look to meet needs throughout our entire province and create a thousand jobs.
This is quite significant. These are the types of investments that are in this
$8.48 billion budget.

I want
to say that we have to have a competitive tax regime. We have to have it not
only on the personal level, but we also have to have it for business. The Member
opposite talks about taxing the rich, the millionaires that exist in the
province, and taxing corporations as the means to solve the $1.8 billion deficit
 well, actually, a $2.7 billion deficit. It seems like the Member opposite for
St. John's Centre wouldn't want to make the changes that are in this budget. The
facts are that there are not that many millionaires or people at the top of the
income bracket. Even if you tax their income 100 per cent, it would not solve
the deficit problem that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When it
comes to business tax, corporate taxation, it has to be competitive to have the
appropriate business attraction to create jobs for our regions and our economy
so that we can further stimulate growth and have broader economic development.
We have the third lowest small business tax rate in the country. That is
something that we're quite proud of and that we retained in budget 2016-2017.

When we
look at the impacts of budget 2016-2017, what we've done as a government  and
it's government's responsibility to balance the impact for those that are most
vulnerable in society and also balance social programs and economic policy. This
is why we created the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and also the

enhanced
Seniors' Benefit. So that $76.4 million will go to those that are most
vulnerable, despite Members opposite in the Third Party continuing to talk about
and spread misinformation out there in the public, fear mongering to seniors.

I had
four public consultations in my own district further explaining to seniors,
those that are on fixed incomes, those individuals and families and those with
disabilities that there is a program to help them and further mitigate.
Actually, some of these seniors that are on fixed incomes, or a couple who are
seniors, are going to be better off based on the program that's in place, even
with the consumption tax increases, the levies and everything that's in the
current budget.

In fact,
38 per cent of people in Newfoundland and Labrador will not pay the levy because
the net taxable income is not over $20,000. There's a lot of misinformation out
there. so I would encourage the general public and the population to reach out
to Members of the government here, to their MHA, to get accurate information
when it comes to what's available in this $8.48 billion budget, to look at
growing the economy and fixing the financial mess that was created by 12 years
of overspending by the former administration that failed to set us on the path
that we need to do.

We need
to go forward in a way that is going to create economic value. I will be
supporting Budget 2016 as we go
forward and create the economy that we need for future generations, for people
of my age, our children and the next generation. We have to make the decisions
now so that we can build that stronger economy. I thank the Finance Minister, I
thank our Premier and I thank all Members on this side of the House for having
the courage to present a budget to take the necessary action that is needed to
get the province back on track.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm prepared to 

AN HON. MEMBER: Madam Speaker.

MR. A. PARSONS: Madam Speaker, sorry. Sorry, it is
getting late in here.

I'm
prepared to speak for a few moments now on this motion that was made. It is my
first opportunity to speak to this budget. I did speak to a side bill the other
evening, but I just wanted to put a few comments out since we are all here
talking about it.

I've
taken opportunity to listen to Members of this House on both sides over the last
number of days  Members of the Opposition, Members of government  and taken
some notes and listened to what people had to say. In some cases, especially for
my colleagues on this side, many who have never been through the budget debate
before, I just wanted to talk a little bit about sometimes the stuff that goes
on during this debate. Never having been through this I'm sure it is quite
interesting.

The
first thing I would say is that you cannot blame the Opposition for doing their
job. The Opposition's job is to hold  it's not just to oppose. Sometimes people
get the misconception it's to oppose. It's not just to oppose, it's to hold
government accountable. It's to hold us accountable. People elected us and I
have tremendous respect for the job that Opposition does. I've been there, I've
done it. So I can say now, that I've been on both sides and I know the work that
goes into it.

I don't
blame Opposition, nor should anybody for, in many cases also, that comes with
it. Sometimes there's the expression of genuine concern, sometimes there's
obviously the fanning the flames that comes with it and, certainly, there's a
fair amount of grandstanding that comes with it.

In fact,
I heard one Member opposite  and if I'm wrong the person can correct me.
Actually, one person said in an interview that budget day was the worst day in
the history of the province. Every day we sit in this House and we think about
Beaumont-Hamel. For a province that's been through deaths on the ice, death on
the water; we've been through financial crises, the closure of the cod fishery 

AN HON. MEMBER: The
Ocean Ranger.

MR. A. PARSONS:  the
Ocean Ranger, Cougar. I would say to
say that was the worst day in the history of the province is absolutely  I
don't even want to use the word shameful, but the fact is let's keep things in
context.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. A. PARSONS: I say to the Member opposite:
If that wasn't said, then correct me if I'm wrong. I'm being told by the Member
for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi that I am misinterpreting. Well, when she gets
an opportunity to stand again she can stand up and clarify the remark, but I'm
putting it up there.

I would
also note that during her time speaking, I didn't say a word. I sat and
listened, but I guess the courtesy won't go both ways. Anyhow, I'm going to
continue on because I'm talking about the role of the Opposition and the role of
government. The fact is Opposition is going to do what they have to do.

I have
no doubt Members opposite have gotten called and gotten emails expressing
concern. Do you know what? So have we. The fact is there's no one in this House
who's going to say that we haven't heard calls, complaints and issues of people
wondering how this was done. That comes with it. It's certainly not the first
budget or last budget where we will have this kind of outreach, there's no
doubt.

I've had
people call me, but for every time there is a call of concern expressed, there
are also times when  I have an email here. I said the other night I would
reference it. I am going to reference it here because this is an actual email
sent to myself and my constituency assistant by a constituent who will remain
nameless. They don't want their name mentioned. I will even say the date. It was
April 27.

They
wrote and said  and I won't do what the minister did earlier, I won't reference
my name. I'll just say they said my name: Dear Mr. Minister. I don't want to be
unparliamentary.

They
said: Let me start by saying I fully understand the very difficult and very
unpopular decisions you and your government had to make regarding this budget.
Given the financial state of our province left by the previous administration,
we need a government willing to make those very difficult decisions. Having said
that, I do have some reservations with the tax structure; I feel higher-income
people will be getting off relatively easy compared to the lower-income class. I
feel government should go back and make changes in that regard. I do have a
number of things I need answers to.

I'm a
senior citizen with a disability. I received my pension cheque today and after
paying all my creditors for the month, I have a total of $440 for food,
clothing, et cetera, until I get my next cheque. You can appreciate my concerns.
Number one, will I still be eligible for the Home Heating Rebate? Number two,
will I be eligible for the new supplement for low-income residents, and if so,
how much? I am a single senior living in my own home.

I think
we can all echo this. My constituency assistant got right back. God bless the
constituency assistants on every side who do tremendous work for the people of
this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: I will say in all this the
constituency assistants do tremendous work; they answer these calls. No matter
who you are, they are the people in our districts who really feel the pulse and
are hearing this and answer the questions, so thank them.

In my
case, my constituency assistant is a lady named Joanne Clarke, a fantastic
person. She actually wrote back and said: Hi, Mr. Blank; it's Joanne. To answer
your questions: number one, the Home Heating Rebate has been cancelled and
replaced with the annual Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement; number
two, yes, you'll be eligible for this Income Supplement.

There
will be an online calculator available to the public very soon, which I have
access to. This calculator asks you for your net income which, according to the
attachment, was blank. They listed this person's income, which I'll just say for
the purposes here, was between $20,000 and $25,000. There's a line that you
would tick off if you're claiming a disability tax credit.

Based on
the information, you would qualify for the maximum Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement of $650. This will be paid four times a year, except for this
year when you'll receive two payments together in October for a total of $325.
You will then receive $162.50 in January 2017 and $162.50 in April 2017.
Thereafter, you'll receive payments July, October, January and April.

The levy
tax is based on  and again, the Member opposite can't help herself from
heckling, which is unfortunate, because a few years ago she said she wouldn't
heckle. The levy tax is based on your income tax which in this case was below
$20,000; therefore, you're under $20,000 and you will not have to pay the levy.
Take care, Joanne.

So the
individual wrote back and said: Hi Joanne; God, you guys are fast. Thank you for
your response. Yes, I turned 65 in August 2014. That was another question. Will
I be eligible for the seniors' annual benefit of $1,313. If so, I don't have
anything to complain about. There are a fair number of seniors in the same boat
who I am sure will feel much better once they know this. I would be really
interested in getting a copy of this. It will really solve a lot of arguments
and put a lot of minds at ease. You take care, Joanne, kindest personal regards.

Finally,
just adding to that, this person would be eligible for the full income benefit
of $1,313. The reason I mention this is because we know there are concerns that
are expressed by certain Members on the Opposition that, in many cases, are
grandstanding. We also have to talk about there are a lot of people  and don't
get me wrong, I realize how tough some of the measures are. We all realize that,
but there are some people that took the time to contact us and when they put out
their information, what they got back, this is their own words: I don't have
anything to complain about and I'm sure this will put a lot of minds at ease.
That's what we're trying to do is to put minds at ease. In this case this
person, they're saying now  this is their own words, this gentleman from my
district  they're much better off.

I know
that certain Members on the other side don't want to hear it. It's funny,
earlier in debate they said they won't even get up and talk about it. When we
get up and talk about it, they complain about us talking about it. You can't
have it both ways.

So
again, I had to put that out there. We're talking, and we're going to keep
talking. We can stay all night and keep talking about it. Again, I'm putting out
something that was actually written by a constituent. I'm not complaining about
Members of the Official Opposition. Members of the Official Opposition were
actually sat on this side at one point, and while I certainly disagree with a
lot of the decisions that they made, the same way that they sit there now and
disagree with decisions, they at least understand what it was like to be here
and make those decisions and have to defend them.

They get
that. They understand that. They're doing their job. We are going to disagree.
There's no doubt. That is not an issue, but in some cases when you haven't had
to do that and you keep making suggestions that absolutely are not realistic,
then you have to question it.

I'm
going to get plenty of opportunity to discuss this more, because I will take an
opportunity to speak to the main motion of the budget as well. I want to speak
from a number of levels. I want to speak from the Justice perspective, and I
also want to speak from my district. Again, I know there are other people that
want to get an opportunity to talk about this budget and they'll certainly get a
chance here, but what I will say is that we know this budget has some stringent
measures; we get that.

I'm not
going to reiterate what Members on this side have said on numerous occasions,
which is (a) we got elected under one assumption; (b) we found out that it was a
complete mess, more than what we were told; and (c) this is what we had to do. I
don't think there's anybody out there that disagrees with that or doesn't get
it. I don't think that for a second.

But the
other thing, sometimes, that we're not quite realizing is that this budget still
has a significant amount of investment in areas like education, infrastructure,
in justice, in health care  and ministers are taking the opportunity. A
number have done it tonight where they've got up and they've talked about the
investment made by their particular department.

So, again, I'm going to talk about Justice, because we've
had some difficult things we've had to do in the Justice budget. But we've also
had a lot of good things that we've maintained in the Justice budget. Now, the
one thing we've talked about, and it's got some attention, obviously, is the
closure of the courts. That's not something that you take lightly. It is
certainly not something I take lightly.

It's not unprecedented. We look over at Britain right now
which is shutting one-fifth of the courts in England. One-fifth of the courts in
England are shutting right now. New Brunswick is actually going through the
shuttering of provincial courts. In our case, we had to make tough decisions.

Now, the positive side is  and in many cases, we're still
going to work to make sure there's a level of service. I can say this because
I'm from a community and I practised law in a community that had the courtroom
closed. Three years ago, I had the court closed in Burgeo for a savings of $600.

I've
been there; I've seen that. I've seen the court in Port aux Basques closed that
was a full court and went down to a circuit court. I've seen it, so I understand
the people in the community being upset about that. I get that.

It is
going to pose some difficulty, but that's why we're working with the judiciary
to make sure that we can address those concerns, whether it be a circuit court,
whether it be advances in teleconferencing. In many cases  you look at Wabush,
that's a difficult decision. Wabush only had a circuit up until 2007. The
caseload has gone down by 48 per cent, so it will probably be a return to the
same service that was there nine years ago.

We look
at Grand Falls-Windsor, again, a difficult decision. Certainly I've heard from
the ministers obviously concerned about that. Those individuals will have to
travel 90 kilometres to get that service. I know that's unfortunate when you're
used to a certain level, but they get the same service on the West Coast. Many
people have to travel three and four hours. It's unfortunate. I don't like it.
I'm not trying to say it's an improvement. That's not it at all.

Then
when you look at Grand Bank  the Grand Bank Supreme Court, again, was a very
difficult decision to make. We're still working through that with the judiciary
to see what we can do in terms of circuits. It's one of the lower ones in terms
of court numbers. I think the only one lower might be Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
There are ways we can do this with technology. Do you know what? The judiciary
has been very accommodating and willing to work with us.

Finally,
we had the court in Harbour Grace. That was probably one of the toughest in
terms of just the sheer numbers, the numbers are there. It's the seventh busiest
Provincial Court in the province. It's the seventh busiest, not the third
busiest as has been put out there. That's not actually accurate. There's a
significant caseload; I get that.

Unfortunately the court was held in a building, the historic courthouse, which
was left to rot by an administration that sat there for 12 years and didn't do
anything to the point where  actually before we even got in office, you're not
allowed to have court there. The fix to that is anywhere from $5 million to $10
million. That's a huge expense. The least cost on it now for the new court,
where they're having it, is roughly $300,000 a year.

The fact
is I get that it's difficult. I've been working with various Members in my own
caucus; the Member for Harbour Grace  Carbonear, Port de Grave  I'll get the
names wrong; I'll always be at that  the Minister of Fisheries. I've been
talking to the Minister of CYFS, I'm working  do you know what? I've already
had a conversation with the mayor; I've had a face-to-face meeting with the
mayor. We're trying to work through this to try to minimize it. The Member was
there also and very passionate about speaking out for her constituents.

We
realize there's an impact there, but it's not something we take lightly. I look
forward to working with the judiciary. But that being said, moving forward, I've
had questions on policing. There is no less policing out there now than there
was last year. None, not one bit. When people say there should be concerns here,
well, that's simply not factual.

I can
say working with our police forces  working with Grand Falls-Windsor, they came
and expressed a concern to us. They said we want 24-7 policing. They said we
want it so we said good enough. We went to the RCMP and said this is a concern.
They're aware of it.

Well, do
you know what? They put 24-7 policing in. I'm happy to report, as I did in the
House the other day, it's working. It didn't require more resources and there
are actually savings. I know there are other communities out there  Gander,
Clarenville  that want to move this way. I'm willing to work with them because
we all want safe communities; nobody in this House doesn't want them. But to go
out and say that the police are affected is not true. That's the purpose here
now, is to make sure the truth is out there.

What
else should I continue with in terms of Justice? The fact is we saw a
significant effect in Justice. The Crown prosecutors are not affected. The Crown
prosecutors are still doing a tremendous job. Our Legal Aid is doing a
tremendous job. Our Civil Division is doing a tremendous job.

I will
put out something that was brought up earlier in Question Period today. The
Member opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned 85 to 90
lawyers in the department to handle the work. Actually, the number is 38. The
other thing, too, is that there's a level of expertise amongst these lawyers.
Not everybody is a general practitioner. There are some that handle strictly
education. There are some that handle transportation. There are some that handle
municipal affairs issues. There are some that handle labour. In fact, I think
there are actually a couple.

I would
say when it comes to Justice, in case this comes up again, there's always
outside counsel retained by the department to handle work. We've got some files
 there's tobacco litigation that has been ongoing for over 15 years by outside
counsel. It's not a case of not having faith in your department; it's just a
case of getting the expertise outside. The crowd opposite should know that
because they did it; they did the same thing. You go outside. I actually have a
list that's going to be provided showing every outside counsel that was
retained, what they were retained for and how much they were paid. You know
what, that should be out there because it's public money.

Would I
love to have the expertise in-house to handle the sheer quantity of work? Of
course you would, but you can't. In some cases, you have to go outside and
exercise those private lawyers because they have the ability to handle that
immense amount of work. Is that anything about a lack of faith? I can guarantee
you, Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous faith in the lawyers and everybody in the
Department of Justice to make sure that we do what is right for the people of
this province, and also to make sure we expend taxpayers' dollars in the best
way possible.

I can
tell you what was easy during this Treasury Board process that we went through
in the budget process was to go through and find spots where there was
absolutely just no management done, whatsoever, of the budget. To go through and
say why are you spending this amount of money on marketing when you don't need
it, to cut out vacant positons that were hired, such as media managers, whose
job it was to look at newspapers: those were the easy ones to do.

To go
through and see why are you spending this much on a line item that has nothing
to do with the bottom line, the core fundamentals of that department: that's
easy to do and we did that. But the fact is we're still doing the great work
that we need to. I'm very lucky that I've come into a department with a number
of great individuals. I'm just happy to be there on that team.

In my
closing notes here, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I will have another opportunity
to speak to this budget. Do you know what? My district saw a significant amount
of infrastructure  it is going to see, hopefully, because it was something that
was neglected for the last 12 years where you couldn't get roads fixed. Roads
were collapsing and they couldn't be fixed; Municipal Affairs where they
couldn't get  you got zero capital works to do water work. Couldn't get a thing
because, again, I guess there just wasn't any money there.

Anyways,
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I look forward to
speaking again and hearing the Members' comments.

Thank
you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just
going to stand and have a few words, just for a few minutes, on part of the
debate of the budget, Mr. Speaker.

I always
heard the old saying  back in our way in Curling  if someone says something
and it's not true, if you don't correct it, people will always believe it's
true. So, Mr. Speaker, today I sat here, as I usually do, very quietly and just
listened to the speakers here in the House and I just made a few notes. There
are some things that I have to clarify and just put out the honest truth of it.

The
Member for St. John's Centre got up today and said why don't you do like Alberta
did. Facts do not matter to her. Stand up and just go off, it doesn't matter,
just keep saying whatever. If she ever looked at it, right now Alberta has an
$18 billion surplus in their heritage fund. They have no debt. They can take on
some debt.

So when
the Member for St. John's Centre stands up and says: Why didn't you do what
Alberta did, it's easy  it's easy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Why doesn't she just do a bit
of fact checking? Why doesn't she do a bit of work on it?

To
accuse the government here  you're not like Alberta. Alberta's NDP government
just went out and borrowed $30 billion. Why don't you do a bit of fact checking?
Why don't you do a bit of homework on it instead of walking in here, grabbing
your paper, standing up and giving this big speech, as if we're doing something
bad in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker?

There's
lots on the budget that you can say we could have done differently, but don't go
throwing out things that are just not true. We can't do what Alberta did. Just
because she wants to show off what the big Alberta premier did, she should check
her facts.

Mr.
Speaker, I heard her say here today  and I was astonished. Once again, you
can't let it go unchecked because pretty soon she's going to start believing her
own comments that she's making in the House. How infrastructure is cut  there's
$575 million of infrastructure in the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, why doesn't she
just read the budget? To stand up here and say infrastructure is cut in the
province, it's just not true. We can't let that go ahead. There's plenty of
money for infrastructure in the budget. For her to stand up and say, oh, it's
all cut; I think the Member for St. John's Centre should be more responsible
when making those statements.

Mr.
Speaker, the other thing she was talking about  no supplement. It won't help
the low income. Absolutely not true. The Minister of Finance offered the Third
Party and the Opposition a briefing on the Income Supplement. They wouldn't take
them up on it. Do you know what they would rather do? Stand up there and just
pass on all the false information.

There's
plenty in the budget you can say we could have done a different way. Absolutely,
there's plenty. It was a tough budget. Every one of us here agrees. But standing
up and making statements, which is totally irresponsible and totally false, just
to feed and then put more shiver into people in this Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador is irresponsible.

I say
again, the Minister of Finance offered briefings. They would not take up the
Minister of Finance on the briefings that were offered, Mr. Speaker. That is
just absolutely shameful. Yet, they'll stand up and make comments which is
irresponsible, not true and does nothing to add to the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, you take the
Department of Municipal Affairs and the money that's being spent in our
municipalities. I'll use one of the departments, the Department of Municipal
Affairs.

The
Opposition has always been saying, well, the cost ratio is going to be cut and
the money is going to be cut for infrastructure. I heard the Leader of the
Opposition state here many times: How about your friends in Ottawa? I can tell
you our friends in Ottawa, led by Judy Foote and the other six MPs, helped this
province out with municipal affairs, helped this province out with
infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: They understand the needs of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you how close they are 
the Leader of the Opposition is always saying your friends in Ottawa. Our
friends in Ottawa are calling us every day, what else can we do to help, how
else can we work together to make this province a better place, Mr. Speaker.

MR. K. PARSONS: (Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE: Here's the Member for Cape
St. Francis  go over it again, Mr. Speaker. You heard him today; you had to cut
him off three and four times today. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker; he
knows what to ask for in his own district because he knows the money is coming
from Ottawa. I guarantee you that. He might be shouting there now, but he's also
shouting when he's looking for infrastructure money, I can tell you that. Which
he should, I make no bones about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Don't stand here and say, oh,
what great money we're getting for infrastructure and all of a sudden stand up
the next day or let your leader stand up and say, there's nothing coming from
Ottawa when they're getting direct benefits  saying what a great job. That's
the difference. I always prided myself if there was something done good, even
when we were in Opposition, recognize it. Everything in this budget is not bad.

Mr.
Speaker, when the cost-shared ratio stayed the same, how many people in
Newfoundland and Labrador heard the Opposition  I think the Member for Cape St.
Francis mentioned it once because I kept a tally. He mentioned it once. How many
times did they stand up and say it was a great move for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador trying to keep rural Newfoundland together, trying to
put infrastructure in for investments for business or for tourism  how many?
One, and that was very, very briefly.

You hear
the rest of them standing up how bad it's all going in Newfoundland and
Labrador, how bad the economy is for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There's
going to be plenty of money spent here in Newfoundland and Labrador in capital
works and in infrastructure from the Department of Transportation and Works. We
have to recognize that. We can say doom and gloom as much as we like, and
there's plenty in the budget that you can see we could have done, but there are
a lot of positive things in that budget, a lot of positive things.

Mr.
Speaker, I'll just give an example. Part of the sustainable plan that we have is
Crown lands. I know Members opposite don't want to hear this. I know you don't,
because you don't want to hear anything positive, no matter how small it is. I
understand that. I understand it. We made a commitment that if there are Crown
lands in a municipality that we would help the municipalities. Guess what? There
are municipalities with frozen land in their municipal boundaries for economic
development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They're coming forward
now to say we have plans to create some economic development; can we freeze the
Crown lands? And it has been frozen for them. It has been frozen.

Not like
the Members opposite who, years ago, did some
Lands Act review, and it is still not brought in, still waiting for
it to come in. I'll bring it in, I guarantee you that. That
Lands Act review will be brought into
this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I'll give you
another good example. We're in for what, three or four months? The Member here,
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development  guess what
the Member is looking for now? Guess what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Crown lands.

MR. JOYCE: Crown lands, Mr. Speaker, for
agriculture in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: This Member here is after
contacting us and saying show us the Crown land that we can freeze for the
farmers in this province, the hard-working farmers, so that we can freeze it and
we can start economic development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's what this minister is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Diversification.

MR. JOYCE: Diversification. Three months
and there's already major headway.

When I
spoke to some of the people in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, who are working with
the department, I said: Why didn't this go ahead before? Do you know what I was
told? They wouldn't free up the land. There were business people coming in  I
think 300 or 400 acres of land out in Stephenville way, out in Codroy Valley
way. Do you know what happened? They couldn't get together. The farmers walked
away. They said we can't put up with this. After three and four years of trying
get land for agriculture to diversify, and this government wouldn't allow it.

Now all
of a sudden, this is moving  I know the Minister of Environment also is on it.
We're trying to get this land frozen so that we can start some development, yet
we're being criticized for that. That's the kind of thing  I have no problem
with being criticized, but criticized for the right reasons, not because there
are positive things happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to
the Members opposite: You always pride yourselves on Newfoundland and Labrador.
Go out and ask how many towns and municipalities right now  how pleased they
are with the budget this year. Go out and ask them. Just don't stand over there
behind your desks and shout; go ask a few of the mayors.

I spoke
to a lot of your mayors. They're happy. They're pleased. They can see some
development going to happen in their towns, Mr. Speaker. That's what we have to
do. We just can't sit here and criticize and not recognize the good. You should
jump on board, help out.

There
are times Opposition should stand up and say: Here's how we would have done
things differently. I agree. I agree 100 per cent, but there are positive things
that we need your help on. We have to work together on all this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, the other thing in this budget  and it is something that got lost in
the budget. I'm not one to always go out and say here's what we're doing as a
government because we should be doing it and I know the government before did it
also.

There is
$70 million for non-profit groups. The Minister of Finance stood up and said we
will make sure that you have the same level of funding. But then we get the
Third Party standing up and saying how all the money is cut, how there's no
money there. Mr. Speaker, $70 million, even before the budget came up 

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. JOYCE: Seventy million dollars for
the non-profit groups. Yet, the Third Party stands up and says everything is
cut, there's no money there. It's just absolutely not true. It's just not true.

Those
are the kinds of things that are in the budget. Those are the positive things
that are in the budget. They're the kind of things, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of
groups  they always talk about being criticized for the budget. You better
believe we hear it. You better believe we hear some of things about the
temporary levy. But I can guarantee you one thing; I hear a lot of positive
things in the budget.

Mr.
Speaker, we've been in for four months. Don't judge us on four months. You wait
three and four years and see how we're going to move forward. We had a tough
decision to make. I can guarantee you everybody on this side of the House  when
you walk in and you face what we had to face, we had to make tough decisions.

Like I
told some people today  a few councillors and a few town councils  what do you
want us to do? Did you want us to cut the MOGs? Did you want us to cut the
cost-shared ratio? We need to take a balanced approach and this is short term.

The
Member for Mount Pearl North said he was surprised there weren't more cuts to
services. That's the decision we were faced with. Do we lay off another thousand
people? Do we cut more services? These are the decisions we had to make.

The
Member for Mount Pearl North: Go out and make the announcement on the hospital
again for the fifth time b'y. Do something positive b'y. For God's sake, go out
and make it on the hospital.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I heard
a comment by the Member for Mount Pearl North. I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. KENT: I withdraw the comment, Mr.
Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I
always tell the truth in this House. I thank the minister for withdrawing the
comment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Speaker. It just
gets kind of hot when you want to give positive information out to the public. I
understand that.

I was
getting back to the $70 million for the non-profit groups and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. There's another thing I'm going to bring up now and
it's the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition got up today and
talked about presumptive cancers and all that. He put in a petition, Mr.
Speaker.

When he
got up today and made the petition, the part on the presumptive cancer, this is
what's so ironic. This is why I have to inform people. He got up today with the
petition. The stat review for workers' compensation was in their hands for
almost three years. They wouldn't bring it forward in this Legislature for
almost three years. Now, all of a sudden, they're over there in the Opposition
and started saying here's what you should do. They had the opportunity to do it
and they wouldn't do it. That's the difference, Mr. Speaker. Now, all of a
sudden, they have the answers to everything.

When I
saw that today, the Leader of the Opposition standing up there today, Mr.
Speaker, and asking to bring this forward when he had it in his hand, as the
premier of the province he should have ordered it to be done. Do you know what
they did? They buried it.

That's
the difference with this government. You may not like the decisions that are
going to come forth, but we will make the decisions that we have to make in this
province. As I said before, the stat review will be brought forward in this
Legislature this fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: It will be brought forward
because it's the injured workers. When you do a stat review on workers'
compensation it is for the injured workers. If you can bring some legislation
forth to ensure that we're providing safety to people in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, you would do it. We will never sit on it for three
years, to stand up the minute you get over there and say, well, where is it.
Three years, Mr. Speaker, that's the difference.

You may
criticize our decisions, you may not like what we're doing, you may say we
should do it a different way, but when we were faced with what we were faced
with, we made the decisions. I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, stay
with us, judge us in three years' time, not three months' time, not looking
after a mess, Mr. Speaker, a mess that we had with a $2.7 billion deficit.

I say to
the Third Party, when you want to stand in this House, when you want to stand in
this Legislature, get your facts straight. I, for one, will stand here and I
will make a note of it. I will make sure that the information put forward is
going to be accurate, Mr. Speaker.

Just in
closing, Mr. Speaker, you hear a lot of people out criticizing a lot of the work
that the Members are doing and facing them. I know, I can start naming them here
how many people here went out to the rallies that they had. They went out to the
rallies; they faced them.

I know
the Member for Corner Brook went with me in Corner Brook. I know the Member for
Lab West went to some. I know the two from Stephenville, Bonavista, went out for
one. We all went out, so don't ever say that we're hiding from the people. Don't
ever say that because it's just not true. When I hear the Opposition say, oh,
you're hiding. It's just not true.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Mount Pearl North, go out and make another announcement on the hospital. Go
ahead; they're waiting for you to come out. I can't wait. Go right ahead.
There's one thing we won't do, we won't stand up here in this Legislature and
pretend that 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Mount  I must
have hit a bad chord, did I? I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North, I
wouldn't blame you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: After walking out and telling
them, yes, the long-term care is coming, changing around and saying, yes, we're
making an announcement. The Leader of the Opposition, as premier, went out; the
hospital is starting in 2015.

I don't
blame you for being upset. I don't blame you when I bring this honesty up, Mr.
Speaker. Gerald Parsons said it to you right when he spoke to you. Gerald
Parsons has a few good words and he said it to you right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: So listen, Mr. Speaker, I
understand the Member for Mount Pearl North just can't sit there and take it,
because the positive things can't happen. He can't take it and I can tell you
why. I'll tell you why, it's all illusion.

When
they were going on with the budget, Mr. Speaker, they were saying here's what
we're going to do. They forgot about the other $800 million they forgot to tell
people in the province. They forgot about that. The same thing with the hospital
in Corner Brook, the same with the long-term care and I can go on and on. They
forgot about putting it all out there.

I don't
mind making a decision, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind if people don't think it's
right or wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I don't mind who's right or
wrong, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that. I don't mind, but I will make the
decision and the people on this side will make the decisions. We're making it in
the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.
Speaker, there is one thing I will honestly say. I have never been so proud to
be a bunch who stuck together on this budget through hard times. I've been
through it in '89. I've been through this, Mr. Speaker. I told our caucus I've
been through it. I can honestly tell you, it's tough. It's tough on all of us.
It's tough on every person on this side of the House of Assembly because we have
to go home. We have to face the people who elected us. We have to face those
people.

The
president of the association, Barry Wheeler, he resigned. I sat down and had
lunch with Barry that Saturday. I explained to him some of the information and
Barry understood. Am I ever going to not return Barry Wheeler's phone call? Am I
ever not going to drop by his house to have a cup of tea? Of course not. He's
entitled to his opinion. Every Member on this side is saying express your
opinion, but we'll give you the facts.

Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I can see my time is near. I just want to say how proud I
am of all the Members on this side for facing the public, hearing their
concerns, hearing their frustration, but I can tell you, we're a proud bunch.
We'll stick together. We will make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place.

Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Seeing no further speakers,
is the House ready for the question on the amendment?